You are on page 1of 34

religions

Article
Jewels Set in Stone: Hindu Temple Recipes in
Medieval Cōla Epigraphy
¯
Andrea Gutiérrez
Dept. of Asian Studies, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA; andreagutierrez@utexas.edu

Received: 4 August 2018; Accepted: 5 September 2018; Published: 10 September 2018

Abstract: Scholarship abounds on contemporary Hindu food offerings, yet there is scant literature
treating the history of food in Hinduism beyond topics of food restrictions, purity, and food as
medicine. A virtually unexplored archive is Hindu temple epigraphy from the time that was perhaps
the theological height of embodied temple ritual practices, i.e., the Cōla period (ninth-thirteenth
¯
centuries CE). The vast archive of South Indian temple inscriptions allows a surprising glimpse into
lived Hinduism as it was enacted daily, monthly, and annually through food offerings cooked in
temple kitchens and served to gods residing in those temples. Through analyzing thousands of
Tamil inscriptions from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries CE, I have gleaned information
¯
concerning two distinct material cultural facets. (1) The practice of writing these rare but remarkable
recipes which themselves are culinary textual artifacts has allowed us to access (2) Hindu food
offerings of the past, also complex, sensory historical artifacts. In exploring these medieval religious
recipes for the first time, I aim to show: the importance that food preparation held for temple
devotees, the theological reality of feeding the actual bodies of the gods held in these temples, and the
originality of the Cōla inscriptional corpus in bringing about a novel culinary writing practice that
¯
would be adopted more extensively in the Vijayanagara period (fourteenth-seventeenth centuries
CE). This study, a radical new attempt at using historical sources inscribed in stone, sheds new
light on medieval Hindu devotees’ priorities of serving and feeding god. The examination of this
under-explored archive can help us move our academic analysis of Hindu food offerings beyond
the hitherto utilized lenses of economics, sociology, and anthropology. Further, it contributes to our
understanding of medieval temple worship, early culinary studies, and the history of food in India.

Keywords: food offerings; Hinduism; Hindu ritual; Tamil epigraphy; feeding god; culinary history;
¯
recipe studies; Cōla temples; South Indian food; material religion
¯

How can one investigate the material culture of a religion’s past when an object of that study—
namely, food—is no longer accessible to us? Due to this predicament, scholarship abounds on Hindu
food offerings in contemporary India and the South Asian diaspora, yet scant academic literature treats
the history of Hindu food offerings. As a result, the study of food in early Hinduism rarely extends
beyond topics of food restrictions, proscriptions, purification, and food as medicine. Few studies
move the academic analysis of Hindu food beyond lenses of economics, sociology, and anthropology.
Yet there exists an underutilized textual corpus for the history of Hindu food offerings in the virtually
unexplored archive of temple epigraphy: specifically, the medieval Tamil Cōla inscriptions. My focus
¯ ¯
for this study is the epigraphic accounts that detail what I consider to be recipes and an early form of
culinary writing in Tamil.
¯
The Cōla period (ninth-thirteenth centuries CE) was particularly significant for South Indian
¯
history as it was a period of relatively stable imperial expansion under a single dynasty whose
leadership contributed to more centralized political organization and infrastructures such as irrigation
systems that advanced agriculture and the overall prosperity of the state. The Cōla dynasty also
¯
contributed intensely to the patronage of arts and culture, including the building of a number of major

Religions 2018, 9, 270; doi:10.3390/rel9090270 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions


Religions 2018, 9, 270 2 of 34

temple sites and religious art. The prominence of inscriptions in temples and the strong patronage of
religious sites during this time indicate that this period was a historical apex for embodied temple
ritual practices. This was in part due, no doubt, to the Cōla period immediately following upon the
¯
rise of the bhakti (devotional) movement in South India (sixth-ninth centuries CE), with its fervor of
visionary saint-poets, the Nāyanārs and Ālvārs, the first bhaktas (worshippers) in India to express
¯ ¯
the intense dedication of their lives and minds to locally situated gods using their poetry. Their
popular emotive verses directly contributed to the onset of practices like temple pilgrimage and visits
to divinities at specific sites described in their poems (Dehejia 1988; Peterson 1989). Concurrent with
the Cōla period was the crystallization of theological ideology in the writing of scholar-saints such as
¯
Rāmānuja, whose theology advocated the worship of icons as embodied worship. All of these reasons
made the Cōla period a high point for temple culture and religious practices and an ideal milieu for
¯
examining temple food and religious culinary culture. In this way, the vast archive of South Indian
inscriptions allows an intimate look at lived Hinduism as it was enacted daily, monthly, and annually
through ritual food offerings cooked in temple kitchens, served to gods residing in those temples,
and fed to priests, donors, festival attendees, and others.1
Many questions spurred my research on temple cooking. Why do recipes only first come to be
composed in the Tamil language in medieval Cōla temple writing? What was remarkable about this
¯ ¯
historical context that led to the beginning of recipe writing in Tamil? How did these dishes taste?
¯
How might medieval South Indian food taste? Is there any continuity between temple food prior to
the Cōla period or following it? How vast is the divide between the medieval Cōla taste for divinity
¯ ¯
and how it tastes today, bearing in mind the fame of modern Tamil temple prasād?2
¯
In order to begin to delve into these inquiries, my method has been to search through the
published volumes of inscriptions compiled starting in the late nineteenth century, including the most
recent publications that include findings of stone carvings from the past decade and that also revise
earlier readings of rubbings and epigraphy still in situ.3 The intention of inscribing in stone at a
temple—which was often the most public and visible setting in a village, city, or town—was to create
a public record of some act, agreement, or gift, like a notarized document today (Karashima 1996).
Such inscriptions might announce, for example, that a regional leader relieved a tax burden from a
certain community under great strain or granted a tax remission whose resulting funds would sponsor
a lamp to be burnt at intervals for a god. Donative inscriptions typically intended to publicize a gift of
land or personal wealth to a temple or its assembly or to the village assembly. Inscriptions usually
stipulated the resulting interest accruing from such an asset that had been invested in the temple

1 While priests’ families never receive mention in the inscriptions, in the modern period, it is most common practice for the
naivedya (food offering presented first to the deity) to go to priests and their families, and then to donors, and, depending
on the temple, perhaps any remaining to visiting devotees. The Cōla inscriptions never indicate that donors receive any
¯
portion of the offerings in return as prasād, although this came to be practiced later in the Vijayanagara period (Breckenridge
1986, pp. 37–38).
2 Prasād here of course indicates food offerings after they have been given to god, which are then consumed by worshippers.
For orthography, I have opted to use what is most frequently recognized. Often this is the Sanskrit spelling, but at times,
a name might be equally commonly known in Tamil morphology. On occasion, a Hindi word might be the most recognizable,
so I have used such spellings, as in prasād. If a food¯word is in common usage in English, I have opted not to write the Tamil
spelling, which often obstructs understanding, as in the case of dosa/tōcai. ¯
3 Given the vast number of sources, at this stage I have done a partial survey of the inscription volumes. This excludes
volumes of the South Indian Inscriptions (here on in, SII) (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) dedicated to other languages,
as well volumes 5–8, left out due to time limitations. However, I have included the Tamil Inscriptions of the Pudukkottai State
(Srinivasa Ayyar 2002) in this study, and key selections from the Epigraphia Indica volumes ¯ (here on in, EI, which generally
focus on north Indian epigraphy) (Archaeological Survey of India 1939). Volumes fully examined: 2 Volumes of Inscriptions
of the Pudukkottai State, EI Vol. 21, and SII Vols. 1, 3, 12, 13, 19, 32, and 34 in full. Volumes studied in part/partially examined:
Vols. 1, 2, 9, and 11 of EI, Vols. 2 Part 1 & 2 and Vol. 2 Parts 3–5, Vols. 4, 8, 24, 28, and 30. Volumes not examined: SII Vols. 5–7
(mixed lang. vols.), 9 (Kannada), 10 (Telugu), 11 (Bombay Karnatak), 14, 15 (Kannada), 16 (Telugu), 17, 18 (Kannada), 20–23,
25–26, 27 (Kannada), 29 (unobtainable), 31 (other lang. content), and 33 (other lang. content). Overall, I have fully examined
10 out of 36 volumes (28% of total, not including EI volumes) and partially examined another 11 volumes (perhaps an
additional 15% of total content). These are rough estimations, as the pagination varies in each volume, from only 200 pages
in some volumes to over 700 pages in many others.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 3 of 34

treasury or among the capai (Skt. sabhā, assembly) of leaders. Inscriptions also indicated what the
annual interest was to be used for, whether to repair part of the temple, to feed religious mendicants or
professionals (teachers, yogins, scholars of the Vedas), or, most importantly for this study, to feed gods
in temple.
Excluding inscriptional content that concerned matters such as sales of property, local political
agreements, government mandates, and so on (Karashima 2009, p. 27), most donative inscriptions
provide for offerings such as keeping eternal lamps lit for gods or generic offerings funding the
bathing and anointing of gods, including the decoration of the gods with scented pastes and
flowers (Mchugh 2012). A significant number of donative inscriptions refer to gifts of food offerings
in a general sense as naivedya, nivēdi, or amutu/amitu (food offering or “ambrosial offering”).4 These
mentions of general food offerings number far greater than the inscriptions that specify gifts of distinct
dishes, such as tayiramutu (yogurt offering),5 paruppamutu (dal offering), and similar dishes served to
the deity daily, at various times per day.
Even fewer inscriptions—statistically rare, considering the tens of thousands of temple inscriptions
in Tamil6 —actually detail recipes by ingredient and by amount in weight or volume. I have isolated
¯
eighteen recipes from the Cōla period material that I consider to be actual recipes for naivedya dishes.
¯
Accounting for additional inscriptions that time did not permit locating, there could easily be another
twenty to a hundred recipes (or more) in the whole inscriptional corpus. There is certainly a larger
number of recipes in the Tirupati inscriptions, which largely concern Vijayanagara period material
(discussed below), by which time the epigraphic practice of recipe writing for gods’ food was widely
practiced, as I argue below. From the inscriptions under examination, I have selected case studies of
offerings and festival foods that elucidate my points and begin to track a narrative of temple culinary
history in line with Tamil literary history and with later Tamil devotional practice.
¯ ¯
Along with my detailed analysis of these inscription-recipes, I forward the following claims as my
main arguments for epigraphical culinary writing. I argue first and foremost that these inscriptions
do in fact contain recipes and that food preparation was a serious matter of importance for devotee
donors of the medieval period (not only for kitchen staff, cooks, and priests). I also contend that these
devotees fed the actual bodies of gods through their donative food offerings. Further—what is most
significant for the historicization of culinary culture in India—I assert that Cōla inscriptions contained
¯
innovative forms of culinary writing that led to the development of a culinary writing practice in stone
that would be adopted more extensively in the Vijayanagara period.
In advancing scholarship on medieval Hindu food offerings and religio-culinary practices, we may
better understand later developments in the widespread production and sales of prasād in Hindu
temples as well as Hindu domestic food offerings in relation to early temple offerings. This research
contributes greater knowledge on an ignored aspect of rasa (taste or savor, but with an extended
meaning of the delight of the divine experience) in early bhakti (devotional worship). The study also
contributes knowledge concerning the developments that led to modern Hindu temple worship and
practice as we know them today. Finally, this work advances our understanding of early culinary
studies and food history in (South) India.

4 Naivedya often appears spelled the Sanskrit way in Grantha in the Tamil inscriptions. For a mention of nivēdi, see line 25,
inscription #17, Vol. 21 of (Archaeological Survey of India 1939, p. 109). ¯ Inscription is in the Subramaniya temple (first
slab; first face) in Tiruccentūr, Tinnevelly district: “. . . for the naivedya, the vegetables to be cut and fried. . . .” Amutu (variant
spellings amitu/amirtu) is virtually ubiquitous in the inscriptions.
5 While tayir is traditionally called curd in India, I have opted for the term yogurt due to its familiarity among readers.
They are different products, with curd technically being curdled milk with the whey liquid separated from it, unlike what
most people in India refer to as curd today.
6 Karashima gives a rough statistic of about 30,000 extant Tamil inscriptions. (Karashima 1996, p. 2).
¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 4 of 34

1. The Recipe for Writing Recipes


Before detailing the intricacies of medieval temple recipes, I must first justify my claim that these
carvings on temple walls are, in fact, recipes, since they appear in the midst of sometimes complex
donative deeds that are public declarations and also, essentially, financial transactions. Let us keep
in mind that pre-modern recipes are quite distinct from our late modern understanding of recipes,
due to both structural and linguistic differences of form (Pennell and DiMeo 2013, p. 7). Even in
Europe, medieval recipes typically lacked the specific directions for making and applying the recipes
that we assume today to be the actual content of a recipe (Alonso-Almeida 2013, p. 68). What we
understand as “recipe” derives from the European receptaria tradition of medieval monasteries that
recorded alchemical and artisanal trade secrets for use in the monastery itself (Pennell and DiMeo 2013,
p. 9). In the Latin sense of “receipt” from recipere, what was received involved a giver and a recipient,
meaning one person gave (wrote) the prescription or receipt for how to prepare something, and the
receiver would follow the instructions given. Thus, in effect, the Cōla inscriptional recipes are doubly
¯
recipes, for they first involve the giving and receiving of the recipe as cooking method for a certain
dish—the actual recipe or receipt—and secondly, because each inscription records a gift of land, gold
coins, or similar that will have interest accrue from it as a gift from donor to (usually) temple recipient.
This second sense is how the inscription actually functions, as “receipt” of the donation. So if anything,
these Cōla recipes are even more “recipe” than what you find in Martha Stewart’s cookbooks!
¯
When analyzing the recipe for its register, form, and so on, recall that genre is “a cultural construct”
that “varies according to the speaking community” (Alonso-Almeida 2013, p. 70), so what appears
familiar to us as a recipe will not necessarily appear so to others, and what definitely appeared to be a
recipe in the eleventh century might not seem so to us today. In its most basic sense, a recipe’s functional
definition would be some text that “communicates information about the preparation of foodstuffs”
(Pennell and DiMeo 2013, p. 6). In its substantive definition, no element is necessary in a pre-modern
recipe except for ingredients listed, per Francisco Alonso-Almeida, perhaps the only historical linguistic
recipe theorist (Alonso-Almeida 2013, p. 71). What we understand today as the “stages” (parts) of
a recipe—name of dish, serving suggestions, preparation method, number of servings, virtues or
applications—are in fact optional (Alonso-Almeida 2013, p. 70), although some stages will appear
at times in pre-modern recipe writing, like names of dishes in the twelfth-century Mānasollāsa or the
virtues or demerits of a dish in the Pākadarpan.a (undated). Whereas some recipe-writing is actually
prescriptive in nature (informing on desired action or behavior, or how one should cook, ideally),
the Cōla temple recipes are descriptive and detail actual practice—how food items were actually
¯
prepared on a daily basis—not an ideal representation of how they ought to be prepared.
The significance of these recipes, then, lies in the fact that the highly detailed nature of the
inscriptional register meant that the important details of what mattered to the donor and temple
recipient became inscribed in stone. The temple inscriptional register was able to be fully culinary in
scope and effectively a culinary register of writing because of the importance of details. It mattered to
the donors that one and a half cevit.u measure of cumin seeds and one uri measure of ghee actually
made it in the daily offerings given to god in their name. Feeding god properly mattered, hence the
proportions contained in dishes mattered. Thus we are able to find the first true recipes ever to be
written in the Tamil language on temple walls during the Cōla period.
¯ ¯
2. The Inscription as Culinary Textual Artifact
The effort of carving writing into stone in a language that is among the longest in the world
in terms of extension (for overall characters per semantic idea and word length) means that one
realistically ought only to write what is truly necessary in an inscription. Of course, we see very long,
publicly impressive inscriptions, of which the Tirumukkūt.al inscriptions featured later in this article
are a case in point. Nonetheless, the difficulty of writing in stone means that the content present in
an inscription already indicates what the priority was for the donor and for the recipient. From this,
Religions 2018, 9, 270 5 of 34

the importance that food preparation held for temple devotees becomes evident, as donating devotees
expressed their desires to have very specific foods prepared for their gods in temples.
We have such a fine archive of medieval recipes due to the precision of the inscriptional record,
which placed high priority on the specificity of details to be put on public record. Inscriptions are
replete with details such as how many measures it is from a certain tree near the river that a donated
property ends, exactly how much paddy from each harvest of each crop will go to pay for fuel for
the eternal lamp lit for a god, exactly how much interest a certain number of gold coins placed in the
temple treasury’s trust will accrue, and how many Brahmins can be fed lunch daily at a temple with X,
Y, and Z lunch items from that interest.
These inscriptions are artifacts in and of themselves—textual artifacts of a culinary nature, with
a physical, material presence and (semi-)permanence in stone. In part, I suspect, because of the
extensive development of temple culture and temple worship in Tamilakam (Tamil-speaking-land)
¯ ¯
in the medieval period, we are fortunate to have more inscriptions in the Tamil language than are
¯
available in any other language (or even in combinations of language families) across India.7 Tamil
¯
speakers simply took to heart a writing practice in stone to an extent not seen elsewhere. This serious
inscriptional practice means that we have an extensive archive—rather, an extensive body of artifacts
in stone. Further, these stone artifacts are culinary artifacts. Not only do pots, grinding stones, early
stoves, and remnants of food in potshards constitute culinary artifacts but these temple walls (and
sometimes side stones, head stones, and stepping stones) are culinary artifacts attesting to taste in the
past. These inscriptional artifacts are our best attempt at assimilating the flavors, taste preferences,
and culinary developments of the medieval period for non-cosmopolitan and relatively non-elite
populations. They present a different sort of record, one that supplements the royal, elite, and literary
descriptions of food and culinary culture found elsewhere in India at the time.8
Cōla imperial culture placed real centrality on temple life, evident in masterworks of temple
¯
construction and feverish virtuosic artistry in the creation of bronze mūrtis (effigies or images) to
be housed in temples and brought out for processions (Dehejia 1990), the graceful bronze gods that
are perhaps the Cōla empire’s most lasting claim to fame (Davis 1997, esp. Ch. 1, “Living Images,”
¯
pp. 15–50). Recall that the Cōla period coincides with the centuries of greatest fervor in terms of
¯
embodied religious devotional practice. The Cōla period followed fast upon the heyday of the Tamil
¯
saint-poets (ca. sixth-ninth centuries CE) who were the forerunners of the bhakti movement. They
sang the glories of their gods that they worshipped with love and of their preferred temple sites of
devotional worship.
This period’s emphasis on temples led to an incredibly extensive inscriptional practice, in which,
at times, even donors’ personalities and the priorities of certain communities show through. Such a
prolific epigraphic practice allowed space for some originality in writing, which we see in the Cōla
¯
inscriptional corpus. During the Cōla period, the extensiveness of the inscriptional practices and
¯
the flowering of new temples and temple worship allowed the space for this originality in writing.
This resulted in a novel writing practice that was culinary in scope, recording recipes, a culinary
genre of its own within the inscriptional genre.9 Perhaps other temple visitors saw these donative
inscriptions that included recipes—or perhaps they observed donors specifying their recipes to be
inscribed by scribes—which led to the repetition of this culinary writing practice such that, by the
time of the Vijayanagara period (fourteenth-seventeenth centuries CE), this practice of recipe writing

7 Karashima estimates 30,000 Tamil inscriptions out of 80,000 inscriptions total for all of India (3/8, or almost half of all
¯
inscriptions in India!). There are 17,000 extant inscriptions in Kannada, 10,000 in Telugu, and 23,000 total for all of the other
languages of India, including Sanskrit, Prakrits, and all north Indian languages (Karashima 1996, p. 2).
8 While some donations are made by royalty, chieftains, and powerful members of society, temple dancers and other temple
works, laborers, and agricultural caste members fund many donative food offerings for god.
9 We do not encounter anything like this culinary writing in the earlier epigraphic record, for example, during the immediately
preceding Pallava period. I located zero recipes for the Pallava period, although I did search through Pallava inscriptions in
my study.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 6 of 34

was adopted much more. Compared to the eighteen recipes I have found from the Cōla period after
¯
examining approximately 30-40% of the inscriptional corpus (perhaps 50-60% of the total Tamil corpus),
¯
I readily encountered and translated over thirty recipes from the (succeeding) Vijayanagara Tirupati
inscriptions while having examined less than 16% of that inscriptional corpus.10 Further, I gave
preference to examining the earlier portion of the Tirupati record in order to trace more continuity
with the directly preceding Cōla record, and the earlier portion of the Tirupati material contains fewer
¯
recipes than the later portion of the corpus does. This might suggest a grand total of two hundred
or more epigraphic recipes for the Vijayanagara period, although the number could easily be much
higher. This is significantly higher than my estimate of potentially forty to one hundred total recipes
for the Cōla period.
¯
3. Naivedya as Artifact
Not only are inscribed recipes artifacts for our study but also the dishes prepared as offerings
to gods—naivedya—although they are cultural artifacts that are harder for us to apprehend today.
Following food historians Rachel Laudan and Massimo Montanari (Montanari 2006, pp. viii–ix),11
I treat all food as human artifact, as substances that undergo culturally and historically determined
modification, processing, and preparation by humans. Tamil temple naivedya and festival foods are
¯
complex sensory artifacts of the past, communicating much about practice and beliefs, as evinced in my
following case studies. The challenge of understanding food dishes as historical artifact—for example,
a dish served at noon in a temple in the village of Tiruccenturai in 930 CE—is why recipes are so crucial
¯
for this study of what would otherwise be intangible cultural heritage of the sort that UNESCO has
only recently been classifying: traditional, artisanal, and local techniques and know-how for making
crafts and art forms (in other words, for the production of artifacts) (UNESCO 2018). Without the
inscriptional recipe archive, we would only be able to glimpse at medieval Tamil food through literary
¯
mentions of dish names with no other information.
When considering naivedya as artifact, it is important to reflect on how this temple practice
might have come about, although the topic is much more complex than this simplified overview
might suggest. Offering naivedya is one of the sixteen upacāras (acts) of a pūjā (worship),12 one that
seems to have developed by the beginning of the common era at Hindu shrines. Earlier Vedic ritual
included food offerings in the form of huta—an offering or oblation, like ghee, placed in the fire—not
designated as naivedya. Vedic rituals such as the darśapūrn.amāsa also included cooked offerings, like
the baked purod.āśa which was divided and shared among the priests following its ritual function
and the anvāhārya, an abundance of grain (often rice) that was cooked on the daks.in.a fire, sprinkled
with ghee, and then offered to the priests in the southerly direction and divided into four parts
(Kane 1942, pp. 1068–69). The practice of naivedya seems to have been in place from at least the time
of the Rāmāyan.a’s composition, where we learn of the recommendation that naivedya should be what
everyone’s food was.13 Later dharmaśāstra (legal) commentators such as Medhātithi quote the Rāmāyan.a
verse, so it was obviously in the literati’s consciousness for a long time.14 P. V. Kane did link the

10 Of the Tirupati inscriptional volumes, from here on called TT, which are primarily but not entirely Vijayanagara in epoch,
I have examined 330 pages’ worth out of a total of 2,107 pages of inscriptions in order to locate recipes (Vijayaraghavacharya
and Sastry 1998).
11 For food as a human construction, see (Laudan 2016, p. 3 & p. 6).
12 The sixteen upacāras are āvāhana, āsana, pādya, arghya, ācamanı̄ya, snāna, vastra, yajñopavı̄ta, anulepana (or gandha), pus.pa, dhūpa,
dı̄pa, naivedya (or upahāra), namaskāra, pradaks.in.a, and visarjana (or udvāsana). That is, (summarily) invoking/inviting the god,
offering a seat to the deity, offering water to the god’s lotus feet, offering water to the hands for ritual washing, sipping water
for purification, bathing the deity, dressing the god, tying the sacred thread on him, anointing with fragrant paste(s), offering
flowers, then incense, offering the deity light from a lamp, offering food, saluting with prayer, circumambulating clockwise
around the deity (keeping the right [reverential] side toward the deity), and terminating the rite. The list sometimes differs.
(Kane 1942, p. 729).
13 yadannah. purus.o bhavati tadannāstasya devatāh. || 95.31 || (Vālmı̄ki 2008, p. 490).
14 Medhātithi (v. 7) cites this Rāmāyan.a passage when commenting The Law Code of Manu, per (Kane 1942, p. 733).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 7 of 34

practice of offering naivedya in temple to the earlier Vedic ritual invitations to the gods to consume the
apūpa (appam, grain cake-like offering), yogurt, etc. (Kane 1962, p. 35), although I think a connection
to the sacrificial offerings shared amongst god, priests, and patron might also be suggestive. Equally
important might be the (originally Vedic) "welcoming the guest" ritual, perhaps embedded in the
purpose of giving food to gods in temple. While an exhaustive, contextualized exploration of the
precursors of naivedya and prasād is not possible here and would require a separate study, I would be
at fault not to acknowledge the topic at all in discussing naivedya.15
Modern-day priests offer more pragmatic explanations for the development of the naivedya and
prasād tradition. Babu Shastri, one of the head priests of Kanchipuram Kāmāt.ciyamman Temple,
¯
told me that he suspected that the naivedya tradition developed because devotees would come from
far away, or at least travel a great length of time to come to a temple and see a deity. After waiting
in line so long, a devotee is famished, thirsty, and hot, so the temples would give a bit of food, just a
little bit to make one feel satiated. In his words, one can be more satisfied with the experience of that
little bit because it is something (when you had nothing, is implied), and then later the devotee can get
more refreshment and rest.16 This was, of course, his unprepared response when I had asked him to
reflect on how the system of naivedya came about. This is in line with Carol Breckenridge’s mode of
thinking that the prasād system developed as a way of distributing foods to many in order to confer
prestige to the donor and that later, sales of prasād items that were less perishable and would travel
well began at large temple sites for pilgrims who had traveled a long way (Breckenridge 1986). This
explanation—visitors’ refreshment after long travel—makes better sense to me for interpreting how
the annadāna system (the giving of meals) became more prominent. There is often annadāna service
in place in temples where the naivedya is kept exclusively for priests and priests’ families’ use and
is not shared with devotees (for free or for sale). I would also link this function of refreshment for
travelers to the pre-modern development of the chattri (chattram [Skt.] or choultry [Eng.]) system of
room and board, often at temples,17 although we already see a few inscriptions that designate funds
for food (not naivedya) to refresh and satiate pilgrims and travelers in the Cōla period in inscriptions.18
¯
No doubt the development of the full extension of naivedya and prasād service at temples is complex,
multi-cause, and cannot be explained solely by the need to refresh pilgrims and traveling devotees.

4. Food Offerings Case Studies


I must preface my analysis of the historical recipes for specific important dishes by clarifying that
the quintessential offering in Tamil temples past and present was and continues to be plain boiled rice
made from aged raw rice. In temples today this is usually called śuddhānnam, pure (in the sense of
unmixed, plain) white rice, but which temple cooks informally call vel..lai cātam (white rice).19 This
was and continues to be treated as the main offering given to god in temples, hence the other name it
frequently goes by: mahānaivedya, the main (great or important) offering. Even today in most temples
across Tamil Nadu, śuddhānnam is typically offered three times a day to the gods (once in the morning,
once at midday or early afternoon, and once in the evening). It also constitutes most of the food
material of the bali offerings that are left daily at the peripheries of temple structures. Interestingly,
in the modern era, the great offering is never returned to devotees as prasād, neither free nor sold
at stands.

15 For a nuanced exploration of the topic of prasād, see (Pinkney 2013) and the work of Gerard Colas, e.g., (Colas 1996).
16 Per my interview with Babu Shastri held in Kanchipuram, 17 May 2015.
17 For a history of the later development of the chattri system during the Maratha Thanjavur kingdom, see (Linderman 2013).
18 Ex. of apūrvi in line 17, inscription #35, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986), Vol. 3, Parts 1 & 2, p. 79. Inscription of
Rajaraja II. Leslie Orr describes new visiting pilgrims as apūrvis on (Orr 2004, p. 452).
19 The Tamil word cātam derives from Sanskrit prasādam, the already (divinely) sampled portion of the offering that is
distributed among devotees in temples across India. First, the “sādam” is given to god as naivedya and then it is returned as
pra-sādam (Breckenridge 1986, p. 37).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 8 of 34

The medieval inscriptions record donations intended to fund the naivedya of boiled rice in
countless instances, surely numbering in the hundreds, if not more. The ubiquity of śuddhānnam as
the naivedya par excellence stems from the fact that white (not whole grain) rice is the most important
and most highly-valued food in South India,20 even if and when no other food is given.21 For the
Cōla-period inscriptions, the standard amount of white rice offered per day is typically four nālis in
¯ ¯
measure, over six kilograms of rice before cooking, except when six nālis are offered per day, with two
¯
nālis offered at each of the three sandhis (the three “meeting points” of the day, roughly, at sunrise,
¯
midday, and sunset).22 So commonplace was it to offer four nālis of white rice per day in temple that
¯
some inscriptions record donors funding provisions of four nālis for oblations to be offered to gods
¯
without even specifying that it is four nālis of rice that is to be offered! A tenth-century inscription
¯
written during Rājarāja Cōla’s reign records a donor granting the supervision of land he had purchased
¯
to the village assembly, the proceeds and profits of which are meant to be assigned to providing four
nālis (of rice, implied) daily for the midday oblations for Tiruvā[y]molitēvar, presumably the sainted
¯ ¯
Vais.n.ava poet Nammālvār enshrined as deity in the village temple.23
¯
To cite another—somewhat later—example24 of the boiled rice offering being the main and
only offering given at temples, the produce from land assigned to a Perumāl. (=Vis.n.u) temple was
designated in order to make the holy offerings of four nālis of rice given to the god first thing in the
¯
morning (“cirukālaisandhikku [literally, at the early morning sandhi]. . . nānāli arici [illegible text] amutu
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
ceytarul.ukaikku”) for as long as the sun and moon [exist].25 To make clear the importance of such a
gift, the entire nineteen-line inscription details the land perimeters and method of proceeding for
providing the rice offering. It exceptionally details that the better half of the remains of the offerings
was to be given to Śrı̄vais.n.ava travelers who had not yet received such an offering (meaning first-time
visitors to the temple),26 and is a very rare instance of a Cōla period inscription specifying that the
¯
leftovers of the naivedya were designated for devotees passing through, not simply for god. While this
is an isolated incidence in the Cōla inscriptional record, it became more common practice in the later
¯
post-Cōla record.
¯
With these and other examples, it is easy to see the significance and consideration of rice alone
as enough sustenance for a temple deity. In what follows, I outline other remarkable naivedyas and

20 For a lengthy discussion of the high prestige and value placed on processed white rice, and especially so in the medieval
period, see (Smith 2006).
21 Even today, when no other offering can be given due to lack of funds, etc., white rice is offered in temples across Tamil
Nadu. In fact, if white rice is offered, nothing else really need be offered; anything else is simply additional or “extras.” Per
my interview with Babu Shastri, head priest of Kāmāt.ciyamman temple, 17 May 2015.
22 ¯
In a few instances, other amounts of rice are indicated for the holy offering of plain rice. For example, inscription #9 from
(Archaeological Survey of India 1986), Vol. 34 indicates that [one] nāli of raw rice is to be given once a day: tiruvamitariciorāt..tai
nāl.āl vanta (line 5). . . nāli arici uccam pōtaikku anna palikkāvatākavum ¯ nel vantana (line 7). The number one is implied when
¯ ¯ ¯
nāli is specified with no descriptor. Tenth-century inscription dated to ca. 991 ¯ CE (the sixth year of Irājarājacōla’s reign)
¯
(Archaeological Survey of India 1986), Vol. 34, p. 15. ¯
23 Line 2 of inscription #2, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986), Vol. 3, p. 4 (section on Ukkal inscriptions). This inscription
dates to the thirteenth year of Irājarājacōla’s reign, so ca. 997-998 CE. We learn that Nārāyan.an Irācaciṅ[k]an donated
550 kulis of land to the village assembly for ¯ this purpose. . . . tiruvā[y]molitevarkku ucciyam poltu nān
¯ ālit (line 2) tiruvamutu
¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
amirtu seyvatarku (line 3). “For preparing the holy ambrosia offering [unusually redundant here, literally “holy offering
offering”] of four¯ nālis [of rice is implicit] at high-noon time for the deity/divine Tiruvā[y]moli.”) Vais.n.ava inscription in
¯ ¯
Śivacūl.ā[man.imaṅ]ka[l]am village, also known as Śrı̄ Vikramābharan.accatu[r]vetimaṅkalam.
24 To cite an even earlier example, inscription #8 from (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, p. 14 (in Tamil), section on
the early Pallava and Cōla inscriptions. Inscription appears on the north wall of the first prākāra of the Tirumala ¯ temple
¯
(the main Veṅkat.eśvara temple in Tirupati). Queen Sāmavai Kāt.avan-Perundevi, who was the queen of Śattivit.aṅkan
(Śaktivit.aṅkan), arranged for daily propitiation (nimandam) with four nālis of rice (tiruvamutu) to be cooked as the daily
offering. This dates to the fourteenth year of Koppātra-Mahēndra Panmar¯ I (a descendant of the Pallavas), hence, a minor
ruler with limited local power at the time of Parāntaka II’s rule, ca. 957-970.
25 Lines 9-10, inscription #35, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 3, pp. 79–82. Inscription pertains to the eighth year of
Irājarājacōla’s II’s reign, hence ca. 1140 CE. This is one of the Man.imaṅgalam inscriptions in a Rajagola Perumal temple,
and, unusually¯ for these inscriptions, starts with a long panegyric (meykkı̄rtti/praśāsti).
26 See earlier footnoted discussion of apūrvi and (Orr 2004, p. 452).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 9 of 34

temple foods that have become prominent in the Tamil diet, still appear offered to deities today in
¯
Tamil Nadu in domestic and temple worship, and/or have appeared in pre-modern Tamil literature.
¯
5. Pōnakam: The First “Poṅkal;” Later, the Main Midday Offering
¯
The plain rice offering of śuddhānnam was and is the norm, but that does not mean it is the
only thing fed to god(s). Another particularly important offering widespread across South Indian
temple practice is something that was called pōnakam in the Cōla period, but which is more familiarly
¯ ¯
known today as pongal (poṅkal, in the savory version either as khara pongal or as ven.poṅkal). Pongal is
popular today as the festival day food for an eponymous harvest festival held early in the calendar
year, marking the commencement of the sun’s travel northward in the heavens. During the festival,
Tamilians take their cooking pots to the town center or main square (or near a temple of their choice or
simply in front of their own home), and boil a pot of milk rice until it overflows. It is the “boiling over,”
(poṅkal = lit., a “boiling” in a nominal form) significant of prosperous abundance, that is supposed to be
the source for the name of the dish and holiday itself. But any regular temple-goer will have observed
that pongal, usually ven.poṅkal,27 is actually a typical temple prasād, perhaps the most prevalent temple
dish served to the public (and to gods in private, behind the screen, after bathing/abhis.ekam and clothes
changing). This pongal is a ghee, pepper, and cumin seed laden dish of rice and dal, often served
today with ghee-fried cashew nuts, curry leaves, and suffused with aroma from asafetida water.
It is this dish that appears early in the inscriptional record and throughout it as ponakam (lit.,
¯
“the boiled food [offering]), also known as tiruponakam (the holy offering) or ven.ponakam (white cooked
¯ ¯
offering/white pongal). I suggest that by the Cōla period, the term ponakam was used to refer to the
¯ ¯
cooked offering, which would be every offering given to god for private consumption, with only raw
offerings like fruit, fresh coconut water, and yogurt being offered to god before the devotees’ gaze.
The usage of this term varies, so generally it meant the cooked offering, and in Cōla times, it meant the
¯
dish with rice, dal, cumin, pepper, and ghee that is so beloved of Tamil temple-goers. It also appeared
in other juxtapositions, for example, pālponakam (a cooked milk offering), paruppupponakam (cooked
¯ ¯
dal offering),28 or the tenth-century occurrence of payarupponakam (lit., whole bean cooked offering,
¯ ¯
meaning an offering of cooked [in this case] dal). In this rare instance, the unsplit bean to be used
to make the dal is toor, with a resulting one uri measure of toor dal along with two nālis and one uri
¯
of rice used daily in this cooked dish offered once a day in the early morning.29 This inscription is
remarkable because the customary dal used in ponakam is typically green gram (moong) dal.
¯
A later Vijayanagara period recipe for vel..lai tiruponakam records a more standard recipe for
¯
(moong dal) ponakam as might be familiar to temple devotees today (ven.poṅkal). Note that the
¯
amounts indicated for this sixteenth-century recipe are vastly greater than was commonplace in the
earlier Cōla period. This is partly because this offering was donated and supplied by the Queen of
¯
Acyūtarāya, hence a very wealthy personage at the height of her king’s and the whole empire’s power,
and secondly, because these were offerings for what had become the largest pilgrimage site in South
India at this time, the Tirumalai temple at Tirupati, in present-day Andhra Pradesh. Her extensive
profuse offerings were given daily immediately following her husband’s (the king’s) offerings and

27 While I have found epigraphic mention of thirteenth-century ven.ponakam, which ought to be synonymous with ven.poṅkal,
there are sadly no recipes or complete ingredient lists included in this ¯ inscription (which also mentions offerings of appam,
dal ponakam, milk ponakam, offerings of fresh young coconut water, and more) to corroborate this synonymity. Inscription
¯
#201, from ¯
the seventeenth year of an unclear ruler’s reign, in the Nat.arāja temple of Chidambaram, (Archaeological Survey
of India 1986), Vol. 12 (The Pallavas), p. 122. For another inscription (#188, same volume, p. 112) from the fifteenth year of
this same ruler’s reign, inscription #188, the epigraphists give a date of 1257 CE, and the prior inscription, #187, pp. 111–12,
from the fourteenth year of the same ruler’s reign, gives clear astronomical indications with confirmed dating of 1256 CE,
suggesting that inscription #201 dates ca. 1259 CE.
28 Both of these appear in inscription #201, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 12, p. 122, line 5 and surrounding.
Unfortunately, this inscription does not record complete recipes and only lists dish names for offerings to be given.
29 In particular, lines 6-8, inscription #210, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 19, p. 107. From the eighth year of Śrı̄
Kōpparakēcaripana(r)’s reign, ca. 914–915. One uri equals a half nāli. I presume that tūp[p]aruppu in line 8 refers to toor dal;
epigraphic orthography¯ is often irregular. ¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 10 of 34

also after Kr.s.n.arāya’s offerings were presented, in a long line of copious offerings for the god, priests,
and devotees.

Recipe for twenty large platters of the Queen’s ven.poṅkal/vel..lai tirupōnakam:30


¯
“1 vat..ti of rice of the Tirumalai Temple measure (malaikuniyaninrānkālāl, i.e., using the kāl/measure of
¯¯
the [temple of the] one standing lower than the hill, i.e., the Tirumalai measure). . .
2 nāli and 1 uri of ghee. . .
¯
2 nāli and 1 uri of green gram. . .
¯
2 nāli and 1 uri of black pepper. . . ”
¯
The Queen’s recipe for vel..lai pōnakam, while lavish in volume, actually seems to be lacking some
¯
of the ingredients we usually understand to make up veṅpoṅkal (cumin seeds, asafetida), although
is still recognizable as poṅkal due to the abundant presence of ghee and peppercorns, equal in
volume to the green gram! But there is a Cōla-period dish called appakkāykariyamutu that I argue has
¯ ¯
been mistakenly attributed to be a fruit dish by Eugene Hultzsch. As you see, the recipe below for
appakkāykariyamutu to be offered in the Big Temple at Thanjavur contains everything we expect to find
¯
in ven.poṅkal (except for the addition of sugar, which appears in most medieval temple recipes, as I
discuss in a later section). Despite correctly transcribing the inscription and translating the entirety of
its contents, Hultzsch did not realize that what was detailed as appakkāykariyamutu is in reality pongal.
¯
To his credit, all quantities of ingredients in this inscription are grouped by ingredient, not by dish,
meaning that one has to separate which ingredients belong together in the same dish when they are
actually recorded by ingredient over numerous lines of text.31 Here is the eleventh-century recipe as I
have parsed it out and reassembled it:

Appakkāykkari amitu (Appakkāykkariyamitu) (=Kārttikai Festival Ponakam)


¯ ¯ ¯
“1 urakku and 1 ārākku of aged rice (palavarici)...
¯ ¯ ¯
1 urakku and 1 ārākku of (green gram?) dal (ponakapparuppu)...
¯ ¯ ¯
3/4 cevit.u of black pepper...
1 1/2 cevit.u of mustard seed...
3/18 of a cevit.u of cumin seed...
1 1/2 kācu sugar (carkkarai) (= less than a half palam; under 2 oz. or so)...
3/4 cevit.u ghee...
salt (the inscription only mentions the total amount of salt to be used for all karis [vegetable or
¯
accompanying dishes] and for the yogurt for this set of offerings and does not detail the exact amount

30 Vat..ti is a round basket, pot, or bowl, presumably a very large one. While the vat..ti appears in Tolkāppiyam, Elut. 170 as a
¯
measure like a nāli or pat.i (which are supposedly identical in volume, something like 1.5 kg each) per the (University of
¯
Madras 1936, p. 3470), this is not possible in the Vijayanagara period, for the recipe could never have more ghee than rice,
or more pepper than rice! I presume the literal “basket” is something like a sack of rice today might be in size. Perhaps this
is similar to modern plate measure used in some temples today, which holds approximately one kg. of cooked rice.
31 To get a sense of how the inscription reads (and it goes on for pages), for the black pepper requirements for this set of
offerings, the inscription reads: “one and a half cevit.u of pepper [is required] for the vegetable curry, three quarters of a cevit.u
of pepper for the appakkāy.., three quarters of a cevit.u of pepper for the tamarind curry, three quarters of a cevit.u of pepper
for the soured curry with tamarind, and three cevit.u of pepper for the pepper powder.” Similarly, the inscription records the
quantities of mustard seed, tamarind, cumin, and so on. In other words, someone interpreting this inscription needs to
single out ingredients from total requirements listed for a number of different dishes, and independently compile which
ingredients and how much of each is required for each dish. This organizational structure makes sense from the point of
view of the temple pan..tāra (storehouse-treasury) which would hand out a certain amount of black pepper, cumin, and so on
at the value of a certain amount of paddy (nel) to be used each day in the temple kitchen for preparing the specific offerings.
So it is quite understandable that Hultzsch did not reassemble the recipes interwoven inside the inscription. Inscription
#26, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 2, Parts 1 & 2, pp. 126–30. Inscription in the Thanjavur big temple, from the
twenty-ninth year of Irājarājacōla’s reign, ca. 1013, near the final year of his reign.
¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 11 of 34

to be used for each variety of offering)”

This will sound like temple pongal to many, but Hultzch was thrown off by the appakkāy in
the dish’s name. He supposed it to be the fruit (sic., vegetable) of some plant called appam (!),
which apparently also goes by the name put..tuttiruppi (!), and he resorted to a dictionary that defines
put..tuppalam as an edible fruit (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 2 Parts 1 & 2, p. 129, footnote
¯
5. Since this recipe in fact calls for no fruit at all (one would imagine that the fruit would make the
list of ingredients for the dish), I propose that the dish has a special name related to the holiday on
which this temple offering was meant to be offered: the festival on the Kārttikai day of the month of
Kārttikai. As it turns out, the first day of the Kārtikkai festival just happens to be called “Appakartikai”
by many Tamilians and I believe that the name for this version of pongal might simply be some
garbled variant of Appakartikai, as appakkāykari actually contains all of the same phonemes if one
¯
drops one “t” from “Kartikkai,” flipping “Kār(t)i-kkai” to make “Kāykari.” Even if my attribution is
¯
not correct, the recipe definitely describes pongal. The Tamil Lexicon has duly followed Hultzch’s
reading in defining appakkāykkariyamitu as a “kind of curry preparation,” while technically I think this
¯
is a misnomer, since this recipe for amitu (offering) falls under the category of pōnakam, not among
¯
the karis.
¯
Finally, the ubiquity of ponakams—dishes of pongal—as temple offerings throughout the Cōla
¯ ¯
period eventually led to the term ponakam being used in a later period (Vijayanagara) to describe
¯
the full (often midday) offering, typically a large spread of items similar to the thali plate of today.
By the Vijayanagara period (fourteenth-seventeenth centuries, 1336-1646 CE), the term ponakam largely
¯
does not mean “pongal” any more in the sense of the dish with cumin, pepper, ghee, dal, and rice,
but instead has come to designate what is formally called the full alaṅkāra naivedya (including white
rice, yogurt, dal, vegetable curries, sometimes a tamarind curry, [today often served with rasam],
and so on). Tirupponakam appears with this semantic value numerous times in the Vijayanagara
¯
period inscriptions from Tirupati, and definitely by the fourteenth century, as seen for example in
the tiruponakam to be offered twice daily at Tirupati according to one fourteenth-century inscription,
¯
including offerings of rice, yogurt, vegetables, and so on.32 Another inscription dating to roughly
seventy years later describes that the tiruponakam to be offered at the sandhi (presumably the midday
¯
sandhi, since only one is to be given daily) must include one marakkāl of rice, one ālākku of ghee, one
¯
ālākku of bean(= pa[ya]rramutu, presumably green gram, which seems to have been the norm), yogurt,
¯ ¯ ¯33
vegetables, salt, pepper —all the makings of a basic alaṅkāra naivedya. Once again, the term ponakam
¯
has returned to its earliest meaning of “holy cooked offering,” for in fact the whole midday/luncheon
offering consists of cooked foods (except for the yogurt, by some classification systems).

6. Kan.n.āmutu
Another offering from the Cōla period that continues to go by virtually the same name
¯
in the present day is kan.n.āmutu (alternate spelling kan.n.amamutu, pronounced “kan.n.’m’du”)
or, as it was more commonly called at the time, kan.n.āmat.ai, “sugar cooked rice” or “sweet
rice.”34 The oldest recipe for kan.n.āmutu that I have located—dated ca. 1126 CE—appears inscribed
on the west wall of the so-called “malai” stone platform at the Arul.āl.a Perumāl. temple in Kanchipuram.

32 Year 1366 CE, inscription #197, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, p. 188.
33 Line 7, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, p. 211, dated 1446 CE.
34 (University of Madras 1936), p. 692, derives kan.n.amutu from kannal, a word for (less refined) sugar or candy (related to kan..tu
from Sanskrit khan.d.a = the partially dried, less refined sugar). ¯The¯ Lexicon (p. 3025) also derives kannāmatai as kannā+matai,
.. . .. .
with mat.ai as an offering for a deity, like boiled rice (mat.ai is apparently cōru in the Piṅkala Nikantu, per (University of Madras
¯
1936), so, a sweet rice offering which is slightly tan in color due to the sweetener (unrefined sugar or jaggery being used in
the present day).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 12 of 34

Recipe for tirukkan.n.āmat.ai:35

”2 nālis of rice...
¯
1 ulakku of ghee...
¯
20 palams of sugar (less refined)...
10 bananas”

While kan.n.āmutu as it is known today as an offering for Lord Vis.n.u (or Kr.s.n.a) does not usually
contain banana or any fruit, this was apparently commonplace in the pre-modern era, as some
inscriptions from the Vijayanagara period confirm that kan.n.āmutus would at times have fruit added.36
One Vijayanagara inscription at Tirupati37 includes two different variants on the classic tirukkan.āmat.ai
with fruit: one recipe is to be offered to Gōvinda daily in the month of Mārkāli and another is to be
¯
offered to Gōvinda once a (lunar) month on the Mūla asterism. Each recipe for tirukkan.āmat.ai calls
for four fruits to be added (pala amutu nālum),38 but, fittingly, the sweet rice offering to be served
¯
daily to Vis.n.u in Mārkāli month, traditionally conceived to be the coldest (winter) month of the year
¯ ¯
(usually falling mid-December to mid-January) includes a warming addition of ginger (iñci amutum)
in unspecified quantity, resulting in a sweet and fruity ginger rice “pudding.”39 While these fruity
kan.n.āmutus surprise us today, the classic ingredients always include rice, ghee, and sugar (the less
refined, muscovado type is indicated by Tamil carkarai). This fruitless version became the normative
¯ ¯
kan.n.āmutu, as in the Queen’s recipe for tirukkan.āmat.ai to be offered to Lord Veṅkat.eśvara at Tirupati,40
in two other classic recipes for Veṅkat.eśvara and Gōvinda dating to the fifteenth century, and in
preparations up to the present day.41 While most offerings discussed here can be given interchangeably
to manifestations of Śiva, Vis.n.u, goddesses, and others, kan.āmat.ai is exclusively a Vais.n.ava offering
and is only given to forms of Vis.n.u, to my knowledge.

7. Srirangam Appam
A discussion of temple offerings cannot ignore the most significant Tamil temple pilgrimage site
¯
of the present day and the largest Vais.n.ava temple complex in India: Srirangam, or, as it is otherwise

35 Inscription #80, line 7, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 3 Parts 1 & 2, p. 188. For an approximate conversion, this
is 3 kgs. of raw rice, 0.3 or 0.4 kg. of ghee, 5 c. sugar, and 10 bananas.
36 I discuss all Vijayanagara recipes for kan.n.āmutu in the body of my text, except for one additional tiru kan.āmat.ai recipe that
I do not discuss above: inscription #190, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, pp. 179–80. This inscription also
contains recipes for kari amutu and appam. On the west wall of the first prākāra of the Tirumalai temple; dates 1393 CE,
the reign of Harihararāya ¯ II, of the first Vijayanagara line. Recipe: 4 nālis rice, ghee (listed generally for the offerings),
¯
and cakkarai (4 nālis shared between the appam and the kan.amat.ai in this inscription).
37 ¯
This inscription is actually engraved in the Gōvindarājasvāmi temple located at Tirupati (not in the main temple), and dates
to 1445 CE. Inscription #212, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, p. 216.
38 To me this suggests the fruits are four in number, but V. Vijayaraghavacharya and Sadhu Subrahmanya Sastry have
interpreted this to mean four kinds of fruit. I am familiar with Hindu offerings that require five different kinds of fruit,
but to my knowledge do not know of a ritual specification for four fruits. Since other inscriptions indicate quantities such as
“vālaippalam pattum” (line 7, inscription #80, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 3 Parts 1 & 2, p. 188, the recipe for
¯
tirukkan ¯
. n.āmat.ai in the body of my text) with the meaning of “ten bananas,” I see no reason not to read this as four pieces of
fruit.
39 Also unspecified is whether this is dried ginger powder or fresh ginger. Typically the inscriptions only record the more
costly dried spices, as when an early inscription mentions the five kāyam (“pungent” spices), inscription #17, (Archaeological
Survey of India 1939) Vol. 21, p. 102, lines 4143. Usually, dried ginger is indicated in modern Tamil with the term cukku,
which I do not recall ever seeing in a temple inscription. ¯
40 For one offering of tirukkan.āmat.ai: 1 marakkāl of rice, 1 nāli and 1 uri of ghee, and 60 palams of cakkarai (unrefined processed
sugar, muscovado type). Inscription #29, (Vijayaraghavacharya ¯ and Sastry 1998) Vol. 4, pp. 59–60. In the Tirumalai temple,
on the western kumudapat..tai of the west wall in the first prākāra. This offering is specified for Veṅkat.eśvara. Inscription’s
dating: 1534 CE.
41 This is offered on seven annual festival days for Veṅkat.eśvara and Gōvinda. Recipe: 1 marakkāl of rice, 5 ulakkus and 1 ālākku
of ghee, 50 palams of sugar. Inscription #213, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, p. 217, year¯1445 CE. Another ¯
tirukan.āmat.ai is offered at night for Gōvinda, described in inscription #223, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1,
p. 240, year 1457 CE, with recipe as follows: 1 marakkāl of rice, 5 ulakku and 1 ālākku of ghee, and 60 palams of sugar (V.
Vijayaraghavacharya and Sadhu Subrahmanya Sastry indicate jaggery; ¯ I discuss this
¯ misnomer earlier).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 13 of 34

known, Śrı̄ Araṅkanātarsvāmi temple. Although time did not permit my examination of all epigraphs
located at Srirangam, I found a recipe for festival appam. Appam is still served daily to Vis.n.u at this
temple in the early evening service at 6:45 pm, along with offerings of vat.ai, tēṅkulal (the extra large
¯
fried mulukku for which Srirangam is best known today), appam, and “Srirangam,” a rice dish cooked
¯
in milk. Srirangam temple also prepares special celvar appam (jaggery rice appam fried in ghee) for
festival days. This celvar appam resembles the two-inch ball-shaped pan.n.iyāram, in case one had in
mind the large dome-shaped, pan-sized appam better known in the far southern tip of the peninsula.
Appam’s historical significance overshadows its daily service at Srirangam and the apparent
continuity of the dish being prepared during the Cōla period and also in the modern period. Appam
¯
appears in the Vedas, the Mahābhārata, the Law Book of Manu, India’s earliest work on grammar
predating the common era (Pān.ini’s sūtras, as well as its later commentaries), and numerous other
works under its Sanskrit name apūpam.42 Its repeated appearance in the Vedas and Mahābhārata
means that it was well known throughout the literary and textual history of India. Its proscription
in Manu—one is not to make and eat apūpa just any day of the week for no reason at all—means
that apūpa has appeared over the centuries in every legalistic text or commentary following Manu
that is worth its salt. It may be that already by the twelfth century CE (but probably much earlier)
apūpam seems to have been reserved in particular as a religious food. In the royal Mānasollāsa’s lengthy
outlining of recipes for cakes, pancakes, breads, and everything in between, apūpa does not appear as
a food to be served to the king, his family, and retinue, but does appear in the list of offerings to be
prepared for deities (devatās).43 So it is no wonder that we find appam among the eleventh-century
offerings and religious festival foods provided at the Srirangam temple (and in other inscriptions of
the period). There might have been a shift in usage at some point in time to an exclusively religious
appellation for appam/apūpam, for earlier works refer to apūpa-makers that seem to be more of the
nature of street-food/market-food makers.44 Finally, the pendulum may have shifted equally in the
other direction up to the modern day, when appam is again quotidian fare and can be procured on
many a street corner in Tamil Nadu and is not reserved exclusively for religious purposes.
The Srirangam record is an inscription that dates to Kulottuṅka Cōla I’s reign, in his eighteenth
¯
regnal year (ca. 1087 CE). Per Kāliṅkarāyar’s donation, for both the chariot festival in Appikai
month and on the Paṅkuni festival day, holy water is to be given as prasād and a hundred
holy appam amutus are to be provided annually (on both days). Again, the recipe for appam
will strike our modern-day sensibility with a shocking contrast of pungent black pepper and
cumin with sweet unrefined sugar and banana. The pairing of pepper and sugar appears again
and again in medieval temple naivedya; although it is a poor comparison, one might liken it to
German Christmas cookies (think peppery sweets and ginger sweets) or perhaps to sugary masala chai.

Recipe for Srirangam appam:45

42 For etymological equivalence of appam and apūpa, see (University of Madras 1936, p. 85). Sanskrit apūpa is also called
pūpam, though less frequently. Pān.ini 5.1.4 is an optional grammar affix rule mentioning apūpa: vibhās.ā havirapūpādibhyah..
For apūpa in the Vedas, see R.V3.52.1-7, R.V8.91.2, R.V10.45.9, AV18.4.16-2, and ŚB 2.2.3.12-13. For apūpa in the Law Code of
Manu, see MDh5.7 (vr.thākr.sarasam . yāvam
. pāyasāpūpameva ca | anupākr.tamām . sāni devānnāni havı̄m
. s.i ca || 5.7 & 9.264 || In the
MBh., 12.37.26 (reiterates MDh5.7), 13.53.17, and elsewhere. Om Prakash writes that apūpam is probably “the earliest sweet
preparation known” in India, (Prakash 1961, p. 19).
43 (Someśvara III 1961), vāstūpaśamana section, 3rd vim . śati, Part 2, p. 9, v. 92. The Mānasollāsa is so thorough in its inclusion of
sweets, breads, and cake recipes that it would be strange for appam to be on the king’s menu for dining, yet not be included
among his recipes, when it is mentioned elsewhere in the text, especially because other dishes to be given to the devatās do
appear detailed in the recipe section.
44 From commentaries on Pān.ini, per (Monier-Williams 1899, p. 143).
45 Inscription #70, lines 13-14, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 3, pp. 148–150. Engraved on the east wall of the third
prākāra of the Srirangam Ranganātha temple. Epigraph from the eighteenth regnal year of Kulottuṅka I.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 14 of 34

”1 patakkum of aged rice...


3 nālis of dal...
¯
3 nālis of ghee...
¯
100 palams of muscovado sugar (carkarai)...
¯
3 ulākkus of pepper...
¯
1 ulākku of cumin...
¯
3 ulākkus of salt...
¯
50 bananas...
5 ripe coconuts (thus coconut meat)”46

This inscription is especially informative in that it stipulates funds (derived from interest from
the coin endowment) to be given as pay to workers making the appam, specifying amounts “for those
who look after the pounding of the paste/flour (māvu) for the appam amutu, for those who bring water,
for those who fetch firewood, and for those who cook the appam amutu (cūt.uvārkkum). . . ” The verb
cūt.u indicates heating or cooking and is indeed still used to describe the frying of things like dosa and
pan.n.iyāram today, but sadly does not communicate if the appam are fried as they are today, steeped
in hot ghee or oil using the shallow frying technique in pan.n.iyāram pans, or if they might have been
closer to the dosa type, resembling griddle frying, with less oil or ghee.
Another eleventh-century Vais.n.ava Cōla recipe for appam appears in the earlier mentioned lengthy
¯
Tirumukkūt.al inscription. Here, the inscription commands that the appa amutu be offered to Kr.s.n.a at
this shrine on his Jayanti as..tamı̄ (birthday), with the cakes prepared in the proportion of one kurun.i and
¯
two nāli of rice, one nāli of dal, one uri of ghee, twenty palams of unrefined sugar, one ālākku of black
¯ ¯ ¯
pepper, two and a half cevit.u of cumin seed, one ulakku of salt, and six ripe coconuts.47 In this variant
¯
recipe, coconut is again present (as it is today as an optional add-in), but the bananas of the Srirangam
appam (popularly held today to add softness to the appam) are absent. Otherwise, the recipes’ similarity
is evident.
An earlier recipe for appam—the earliest I have encountered in the medieval epigraphs—records
its date as the twenty-third year of Parakēcarivarman’s rule (Parāntakan I), ca. 930 CE.48 This recipe
¯ ¯
is much simpler, and only requires three nālis of paddy’s equivalent value in aged rice and value
¯
from land produce totaling the cost of one ālākku of ghee. Ground grain for the batter and ghee for
¯
frying is, after all, all one really needs to make basic dosa, pan.n.iyāram, or appam. But this inscription is
certainly an early one, perhaps signaling an earlier simplicity in offering practices that rapidly became
more elaborate and sumptuous in the early Cōla period. This offering was also intended for a Śaiva
¯
temple, for the god at Īśānamaṅkālam, which might also account for the offering’s simplicity, since
complex and rich offerings are more the mark of Vais.n.ava sites. What the recipe lacks in complexity,
the inscription offers us in affectionate detail, as we learn that chieftain Bhūti Parāntakan made this
¯
donative offering to the god of Īśānamaṅkālam (probably a form of Śiva) on the occasion of the first
feeding of his son, a big deal for a proud father!
Two Vijayanagara-period Tirupati recipes for appam attest to the persistence of black pepper and
unrefined sugar as mainstays in the ideal model for late pre-modern appam (two ingredients that
incidentally also recur in recipes for atirasam and sweet dosa49 ). The Vijayanagara-period recipes also

46 We can be sure that the coconut is ripe coconut meat from the Tamil term used, teṅkāy, and because the inscription provides
funds to cover an additional ten young coconuts to be used at these ¯ festivals for fresh coconut water amutu.
47 Inscription #38, line 24, (Archaeological Survey of India 1939) Vol. 21, pp. 236–47.
48 Inscription #2 of the appendix to (Archaeological Survey of India 1986) Vol. 32, p. 388. Inscription located on the jagati
(south), central shrine of the Chandraśēkhara temple in Tiruccenturai, Trichy taluk, in Trichy district.
49 ¯
Atirasam, another of the oldest sweets of India, literally (and amusingly) means “too tasty!” With the addition of both
pepper and sugar, no wonder it got its name for so much flavor. Vijayanagara period recipes from Tirupati with both
pepper and sugar can be found in inscription #6, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 4, pp. 16–19, inscription
#19, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 4, p. 41, inscription #29 (without pepper; sweet atirasam as known today),
(Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 4, pp. 59–60, and elsewhere.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 15 of 34

return to the greater simplicity of appams that we saw in the earliest inscriptional recipe from the
tenth century. The recipe from 1393 CE calls for seven nāli of rice and one ulakku of pepper, with the
¯ ¯
required amount of sugar listed to be shared between this appam offering and another offering for
kan.n.am/kan.n.āmutu.50 The Queen’s sweet appam (1534 CE) adds ghee into the mix,51 presumably for
frying, which seems to be lacking in the fourteenth-century recipe for appam, but is probably included
in the mass volume of ghee required for all offerings listed in that inscription.52
Overall, all of the inscriptional recipes for appam confirm that this sweet dish is a treat offered to
gods especially at festival times, given on the occasion of birthdays, annual festivals, and special
events like a baby’s first solid food.53 The only instances I have found of appam being offered
everyday are the late pre-modern sixteenth-century offering by the queen of Acyūtarāya at the
Tirupati temple—obviously a grand and extravagant offering for a magnificent temple site—and in
the modern-day daily service of appam (not the festival celvar appam) given to Lord Ranganathar at
Srirangam, another grand and magnificent deity at an out-of-the-ordinary temple site. The reservation
of appam for special occasions and festivals reminds us of Manu’s early warning (reiterated in the
Mahābhārata and elsewhere) that one is not to eat appam for no reason at all. Over a millennium after
Manu’s dictum, Cōla inscriptions continue to communicate this ideal practice: appam is not for the
¯
everyday, but for those special moments in life.

8. Pul.iṅkari vs. Pul.it.t.akkari: How Sour can South India Go?


¯ ¯
Something curious occurs with some other Cōla-period temple offerings typically included in
¯
what is understood today as the main service of alaṅkāra naivedya (the full meal including white
rice, dal, yogurt, vegetable dishes, and so on). South Indian cuisine famously features sour (green
mango, tamarind, or lemon rice) and soured foods (yogurt so sour it makes one’s teeth hurt, fermented
soured batters for idli, dosa, and even atirasam/adirasam). Natural souring of foods was an inevitable
process in the heat and humidity of South India when food sat out for even a short amount of time,
but also (or, as a result), something that people sought out as a desirable flavor, perhaps because of
its prevalence. Sour must be the definitive savor of the southern states, the taste preference that is
obscured today by the modern era use of tomato (sour yet sweet) and by the wide availability of snacks
with industrially produced sugar. In the past, refined sugar would have been more of a delicacy due to
the laborious, energy-consuming complexity of sugar-refining and processing.
Sour and soured foods appear not only in temple inscriptions but also in a number of the earliest
Tamil descriptions of food and food preparation in the classical caṅkam (sangam) corpus, which I
¯
highlight here in order to assert the long duration of the importance of sour tastes in South India.
Sour foods are among the most prevalent in the descriptive portions of the sangam corpus (here,
largely from the Pattuppāt..tu). The Malaipat.ukat.ām, a lyric landscape poem dating to ca. third-fourth
century CE, contains various accounts of tasty meals served to the bard and musicians as they progress
through different zones of the land. As one bard describes to another, when they visit village huts
they will receive bamboo rice porridge (cooked grain) and a tasty tamarind mix with broad beans

50 Inscription #190, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1; pp. 179-80, on the west wall of 1st prākāra of the Tirumalai
temple. Dates to the reign of Harihararāya II, of the first Vijayanagara line. Both recipes together call for four nālis of
unrefined sugar, divided between the appam and the kan.n.am. It is impossible to determine whether that would mean¯ two
nālis of sugar per offering, or more sugar for the kan.n.am and less for the appam.
51 ¯
For one offering (pat.i) of appam: 2 marakkāl of rice, 3 nāli and 1 uri of ghee, 1 ālākku of pepper, and 100 palams of sugar
(cakkarai). Inscription #29, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry ¯ 1998) Vol. 4, p. 59–60.¯ In the Tirumalai temple, on the western
kumudapat..tai of the west wall in the first prākāra. The queen of King Acyutarāya made this donation.
52 Inscription #190, (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998) Vol. 1, pp. 179–80, lists 5 nāli, 3 ulakku, and 1 ālākku of ghee as
required overall for four different offerings. ¯ ¯ ¯
53 The 1393 CE Vijayanagara Tirupati inscription also specifies that the appam (along with other offerings) is to be served on
the Vit.āyārri days of each of the festivals, meaning it is a special offering and not commonplace. (Vijayaraghavacharya and
Sastry 1998) ¯ ¯ Vol. 1, p. 180.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 16 of 34

(hypothetically like a broad bean tamarind kulampu [=mix/sauce]).54 The semantic value of the term
¯
pul.i as tamarind and not simply something sour (or sourness itself) is as uncertain in Tamil as amla
¯
is in Sanskrit (meaning something soured, like yogurt, or something sour, among which tamarind
is possible). We can only assume that, then as now, the semantic range of the term encompasses
the adjective “sour,” “sourness,” and “tamarind,” and derive meaning contextually in each instance.
In this passage we do not have another indication of yogurt or buttermilk, so I see no reason not to
accept that the mixture for the sauce among these villagers is tamarind-based.
Another tamarind sauce appears on the menu in the Cirupān.ārruppat.ai, another song cycle
¯ ¯¯
contained in the Pattuppāt..tu, where, reportedly, the women who have cooked will feed the bard
and his companions sweet tamarind cooked grains and [meat] from wild cattle that is hot and ready.55
The dish sounds rather like tamarind rice (which can certainly be described as sweet), and the insertion
of the adjective sweet (in)56 before the word for tamarind, pul.i, almost confirms that the meaning
¯
indicated is tamarind, and not simply “sour,” but again we have indication of the prevalence of
tamarind in the South Indian/Tamil diet. Further, in Akam 311 we have a reference to tamarind in
¯
what seem to be sweet tamarind steamed cakes.57
Sourness in caṅkam dishes did not necessitate only tamarind as the source. We have plenty of
references where other sour ingredients like yogurt convey the sourness (pul.i) mentioned directly
in poems, as in Akam 394. In this song, small-headed-sheep’s milk yogurt has thickened, ripened,
and yellowed a bit, and is added to kodo millet cooked grain porridge along with winged termite young
(ı̄cal). However unappealing this dish might sound to western readers today, the dish is generally
described in the poem as “delicious sour light cooked grains” (in pul.i veñcōru, v.5), and termite young
¯ ¯
still make up some Tamil communities’ cuisine.58
¯

54 v. 435–436 of Malaipat.ukat.ām (the section on “Pul Vēynta Kut.icaikal.il pul.iñkūlum, piravum perutal,” “Receiving tamarind sauce
and other things at the thatched huts”): vēy kol. arici mitavai corinta / cuval ¯ vilai¯ nellin avarai
¯ ampul.iṅkūl. Tamil text from
. ¯ ¯ ¯
(Herbert, no date).
55 I have left an unspecified “grain” in my translation of cōru (which can refer to any boiled or cooked grain, perhaps here one
of the millets that grow in a short time in drought conditions) ¯ because the landscape here is pālai (wasteland), and I doubt
they had abundant white rice in a wasteland. Cirupān.ārruppat.ai, 175–177: eyirriyar at..ta in pul.i veñcōru / tēmā mēni sil val.ai
āyamot.u / āmān cūt..tin amaivarap perukuvir. From the ¯ section
¯ ¯ on “Uruveyirku ulai ¯ ¯ iya uruppu
¯ avir kurampai,”
¯ Tamil¯text from
¯
(Herbert, no date). ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
56 It is possible that the adjective in simply indicates “delicious, delightful, pleasant.” I think “sweet” contributes to the idea
of tamarind because the fruit is¯not only sour but also has some sweetness. Regardless of how to interpret in, pul.i (in this
reference and others) supports my argument of the prevalence of sour/tamarind dishes in early South Indian ¯ cuisine.
57 This passage is less certain, but I am inclined to consider at.ai as describing the Tamil food we know of the same name (small
cakes, sometimes steamed). The mention of the hollow cane tubes (kulāy)—probably ¯ bamboo because the tinai (landscape)
is marutam—supports my idea, since steamed cakes like put..tu have¯long been steamed in bamboo. I do not follow the
commentators interpretation that the sweet tamarind “ending ears” (?!) means that the couple was so hungry that their
ears were blocked and the food ended this ear blockage. I see no reason not to accept at.ai as the at.ai we know later from
Tamil cuisine, and the collocation of ear (cevi) is not too problematic, for I have references to deep fried “ear cakes” in the
¯
Mānasollāsa. These are cakes presumably cooked in shapes that resemble ears, “kat.akarn.ān,” meaning either hollow ears,
pan ears or crispy ears, v. 1396 and preceding; of the annabhoga section, vim . śati 3, adhyāya 13, p. 119 of Vol. 2 of (Someśvara
III 1961). Further, cevvi refers to taste in the Nālat.iyar (a fifth-sixth century didactic text, dating that is not too remote from
the akam poem), so it is not impossible to conceive that cevi at.ai might refer to a tasty at.ai/adai cake (University of Madras
1936, p. 1615). In any case, the collocation of “ear at.ai cake” inserted directly between “sweet tamarind” and “strong teak
leaves” suggests that it describes what is being apportioned (pakukkum) on the teak leaves rather than the food’s effect (of
blocking some unmentioned hunger apparent somehow in the ears), which I might expect to find located before the sweet
tamarind in the verse. The commentators seem to have been grasping at straws with “ear blocking.” George Hart follows
the commentary’s interpretation (Hart 2015), Akam 311, p. 316, footnote 12. Akam 311, verses 9-12: . . . kōvalar / mala vit.aip
pūttiya kulā ayt tı̄m pul.i / cevi at.ai tı̄rat tēkkilaip pakukkum / pulli nannāt..tu umpar. . . Tamil text from (Herbert). My tran. ¯ of the
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
passage: “. . . the pastoral people (kōvalar, line 9), dividing/apportioning (pakukkum 11) the delicious sour/tamarind (10)
“ear” cakes (at.ai) on strong (tı̄ra) teak leaves (11) tied together (pūt..tiya) in hollow cane tubes (kulāy 10) [carried] on the young
male bulls. . . ”. ¯
58 Akam 394, lines 2–5. cirutalait turuvin paluppuru vil.ai tayir / itaip puna varakin avaippu mān. ariciyōt.u / kār vāyttu olinta ı̄rvāyp
purrattu / ı̄yal peytu at..t¯a in pul.i veñcōr¯u. Tamil
¯ ¯text from (Herbert, no ¯ date). My
¯ tran.: “. . . small-headed-(ciru talai) ¯ sheep[’s
¯ ¯ (tūru) yogurt that has
milk] ¯ thickened/ripened
¯ ¯ (vilai/paluppu) and become (uru) a little yellow (line 2), with ¯ excellent (mān)
. .
pounded (for husking the shell, avaippu) grain (arici) of¯kodo millet (varuku) ¯from that dry (puna) plot of land (=field, itai),
¯
(3). . . ” Some communities in Tamil Nadu such as the Irula tribals still eat termite young, either trapped from the anthill
mounds and grilled, or caught (in an urban context) and pan-fried with masala (Lenin 2018; Rajendran 2018).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 17 of 34

This excursus into earlier saṅgam-era culinary practices of the Tamil area—and its privileging
¯
of sourness—helps us better understand the presence of sour dishes in the Cōla record. In the
¯
Cōla temple offerings, we also find both yogurt and tamarind (sometimes together!) conveying a
¯
dish’s sourness. In an inscription from Rājarājacōla’s reign (the most powerful of the Cōla emperors,
¯ ¯
ruling at the empire’s height),59 festival day offerings included fried vegetable offerings, pepper
powder, (steam/boiled) vegetable offerings, a tamarind dish (pul.iyit..tuṅkari amutu),60 and another sour
¯
dish (pul.iṅkari amutu), in which the sourness is from both tamarind and yogurt.61 In this context,
¯
the pul.iyit..tuṅkari suggests a dish much like the saucy sour pul.i kulampu as Tamilians know it today,
¯ ¯
and the pul.iṅkari is a bit more complex, perhaps something like a mōr kulampu (buttermilk saucy dish)
¯ ¯
or a prepared tamarind curd (yogurt) rice with both tamarind and banana (perhaps unripe) appearing
where we find carrots and pomegranate fruit seeds today.
In the Tirumukkūt.al inscription of Vı̄rarājendra,62 one observes that pul.ittakari contains tamarind
¯
and that pul.iṅkari, appearing in two separate instances in the inscription, always has some fermented
¯
dairy, whether yogurt or buttermilk. One pul.iṅkari is offered on the Kārttikai day of Kārttikai month
¯
(along with the appakkāykari discussed earlier). This sour dish required one kurun.i of yogurt.63 Later
¯ ¯
in the inscription, pul.iṅkari is also included among dishes given to feed Śrı̄vais.n.avas on one annual
¯
festival occasion. For the pul.iṅkari to feed one hundred Śrı̄vais.n.avas at the tı̄rtham at Tiruveṅkat.amalai
¯
(presumably Tirupati, which is not too far from Tirumukkūt.al), the donation covers one tūn.i and
one padakku of paddy in value to cover the cost of the buttermilk for the Śrı̄vais.n.avas’ pul.iṅkari.
¯
Although I do not intend to interpret the past using modern-day criteria, this pul.iṅkari made with
¯
either buttermilk or yogurt sounds a great deal like mōr kulampu, in which either buttermilk or yogurt
¯
with some water are interchangeably used. Conversely, the Tirumukkūt.al’s pul.ittakari given to feed the
¯
same Śrı̄vais.n.avas requires tamarind and seems to be more akin with the great temple (Br.hadı̄śvara
kōyil) at Thanjavur’s pul.iyit..tuṅkari described one paragraph earlier.64 These descriptors are exactly
¯
the opposite of how we might expect the dishes today. I would more likely call a dish “soured”
(pul.iya/pul.iyit..tu) because of the addition of yogurt or buttermilk, whereas I would expect pul.iṅkari
¯
(compound noun) to be “tamarind curry;” instead we observe exactly the opposite in these records!
Regardless, the appearance of both dishes in tandem in more than one inscription using the same
ingredients confirms the usage of the day.
Finally, confirming the ubiquitousness of tamarind and sour components as a main feature in the
Cōla period Tamil South, countless inscriptions note menus for temple feedings (similar to a modern
¯ ¯
annadāna, where donors regularly provide meals to temple visitors or regulars) that invariably include
tamarind among the needed ingredients. One “shopping list” for the temple pan..tāram (which is at the
same time the temple storehouse, granary, and treasury, all in one) for feeding twenty Brahmins daily

59 Inscription #26, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, pp.127–8) Vol. 2 Parts 1 & 2. From the twenty-ninth year of Rājarāja’s
reign (ca. 1013, near the final year of his reign). Inscription is in the inner gopuram of the Thanjavur big temple, on the
right side of the entrance. The offering was served for each of the thirteen festival days (the twelve monthly festivals of
Tiruśataiyam on the Sanskrit Śatabhishaj naks.atra) and on the Kārttikai day of the Kārttikai festival.
60 Pul.iyit..tuṅkari amitu recipe: 3/4 of a cevit.u of pepper, 3/20 and 3/18 of a cevit.u of cumin, 1 1/2 palams of tamarind, with
paddy and salt ¯ generally required. This recipe calls for twice as much tamarind as the following recipe (puliṅkari), which
. ¯ = 6 kacu,
combines the tartness of tamarind with the sourness of yogurt. 1 palam (volume) = 4 kācu (weight), hence 1.5 palams
contrasting with the following recipe’s 3 kacu weight measure of tamarind.
61 Pul.iṅkari recipe: 3/4 cevit.u of pepper, 1 1/2 cevit.u of mustard seed, 3/18 cevit.u of cumin, 1 kācu of sugar, 3 kacu of tamarind,
¯ 1 uri of yogurt, 3 cevitu of horse gram (kollu), and 3 plantains or bananas (valaipalam). This inscription refers
1 nāli and
¯ . ..
to needing paddy and salt generally for the recipes. Since the salt is clearly intended to¯ be added
¯ directly into the fried
vegetable offering and other offerings, it is hard not to imagine that the paddy is not also meant to be applied directly in the
recipes. This suggests that the dish might be like some fancy prepared tamarind “curd” (yogurt) rice (such dishes exist even
today), or, it might simply be another kulampu/sauce to be served alongside the vegetables and the śuddhānnam (white rice)
(Archaeological Survey of India 1986, Vol. ¯ 2 Parts 1 & 2, pp. 127–28).
62 The Tirumukkūt.al inscription of Vı̄rarājendra, (Archaeological Survey of India 1939) Vol. 21, especially pp. 236–38 and
247–48.
63 Ibid., p. 247.
64 Lines 29–30 of the above inscription.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 18 of 34

in the Nat.arāja temple of Cidambaram includes the daily tally of rice (uncooked), vegetables (kari),
¯
pepper (mil.aku), tamarind (pul.i), five fruits, salt, turmeric, ghee, yogurt, betel leaves, and areca nuts.65
Notably, the daily humble fare—not offered to god—includes only fruit for sweetness and not sugar,
but is marked by the prominence of sourness in both tamarind and yogurt.
Throughout this section, the emphasis on sour and fermented foods reminds us of the prevalence
of the sour taste in Tamil and Cōla period food. This is often overshadowed in discussions of holy
¯ ¯
offerings due to the heightened presence of sweet desserts and special festival, value-added, sugary
offerings to impress upon the public the munificence and prestige of the temple donor and his/her
gift. Less remarkable offerings that did not make my final list of case studies routinely appear in
inscriptions, like tayiramutu (yogurt offering) and pul.iṅkariyamutu (sour curry or tamarind offering).
¯
The simplicity of these dishes meant that, more often than not, recipes for these offerings were not
included in the inscription-writing practice of donative epigraphy. This might suggest that sour dishes
were quotidian and commonplace in the diet of pre-modern Tamilians, and that the sweetness in
sugary offerings really was something special and out of the ordinary, something that needs reminding
of with the easy accessibility of sugary sweets today.

9. Akkāra At.icil
Another offering with significant literary mention is akkāra at.icil, with akkāra being a Tamilization
of the Sanskrit word for less refined clumped sugar (Tam. cakkarai or carkarai, vernacular akkāra;
¯
Skt. śarkarā), and at.icil meaning “something cooked,” from verb at.u (to cook, roast, fry, boil, melt).
This medieval offering is closest to what is known today across South India as cakkarai poṅkal, and is
the sweet version of the ponakam discussed above. This sweet offering is prominent in the temple
¯
inscriptional record, but it is equally prevalent in literary sources that precede the Cōla period
¯
references. Curiously enough, at this time I have not encountered a dish by this name (or similar) in the
later Vijayanagara epigraphical record at Tirupati,66 despite most of the inscriptions, liturgy, and temple
practices at Tirupati being culturally Tamil in nature. As to why the offering lost prominence by the
¯
Vijayanagara period, Carol Breckenridge’s argument of the increased popularity of individual-sized,
hand-held, and especially fried snacks as temple offerings in the Vijayanagara period might account
for this change in trend. Akkāra at.icil is semi-liquid and does not travel well in the case of pilgrims
returning home with portions of prasād to share with family and others.67
Certainly the most famous (and earliest) mention of this dish appears in a song composed by
female saint Ān.t.āl. from her collection Nācciyār Tirumoli (Sacred Words from the Goddess [i.e., from Ān.t.āl.;
¯
name for collection given later], ninth century CE), written in adoration of and love for Lord Vis.n.u.
Ān.t.āl. sings:

“For the lord


of the sweet fragrant groves of Māliruñcōlai
I offered a hundred pots of butter
and yet another hundred brimming with sweet rice [= akkāra at.icil]
Will the beautiful lord who rides on Garud.a

65 Inscription #223, lines 29–30, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, pp. 28–31), Vol. 4. In Chidambaram at the Nat.arāja
temple, outside the first prakāra on the north side. The dating of this inscription is unclear. For further information, this
inscription corresponds to AR numbering 115 of 1888.
66 At this time, my study of the Tirupati inscriptions is incomplete, so my data for this period is perhaps inconclusive in terms
of making a firm statement.
67 Breckenridge’s criteria for latter-day Vijayanagara prasād include the lack of perishability, easily counted individual units for
determining the scale of how impressive the offering was, its redistributive capacity, and more (Breckenridge 1986, p. 41).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 19 of 34

not come to claim my offering?”68

The following verse in the decad continues Ān.t.āl.’s desire to give delightful offerings to her god:

“If only he will claim my offerings


I would offer yet another hundred thousand pots.
If only the lord who abides
in the groves of Tirumāliruñcōlai
fragrant with the breeze from the South
would take me into his heart:
I, who have always been his slave.”69

Legend has it—according to Ān.t.āl.’s commentators, which is popular knowledge among


Śrı̄vais.n.avas—that Rāmānuja, in devotion to Ān.t.āl., fulfilled her vow and offered hundreds of dishes
of akkāra at.icil at the Tirumāliruñcōlai temple of Cuntararāja Perumāl. before he reached Ān.t.āl.’s home
temple (where she had united with Lord Vis.n.u, in Śrı̄villiputtūr) (Venkatesan 2010, p. 212). The
significance of Ān.t.āl.’s worship of Lord Vis.n.u with offerings of akkāra at.icil is held to be so important
that even to this day Vais.n.avas still recreate the offering while reciting the Tirumoli verses. North
¯
American diaspora Vais.n.avas re-enact Ān.t.āl.’s feeding of her god by ceremonially offering a hundred
pots of akkāra at.icil to Vis.n.u as far removed from Śrı̄villiputtūr as is North Carolina.70
This food offering also appears in a similarly dated epic poem that is one of the five great epics
(makākāppiyaṅkal.) of Tamil literature, the Cı̄vakacintāman.i (v. 928). This reference to the religious offering
¯
is scathing; the epic, a Jaina text, promotes Jaina values and does not endorse the Hindu practices or
worship of its day (probably ninth century CE).71 The surrounding verses (vv. 927 & 929) criticize
decadent and sinful practices more generally (gambling, lust, drinking, wealth, and dancing) and
suggest breaking free from this lascivious, illusory cycle (saṁsāra) of birth, death, rebirth, and re-death
(v. 917). This food verse hints at a critique of particularly Hindu behavior and singles out the excess of
offerings like akkāra at.icil. The milky sweet lentil rice (ām pāl akkārat.alai) is here called by the traditional
temple name used in inscriptions—akkārat.alai—amongst descriptors such as “sweet milk offering,”
“boiled [dishes] the color of decadent gold,” and “many varieties (pālavarai) of offerings” (amirtam, i.e.,
specifically religious food offerings) “gushing with fragrant ghee” (v. 928).72
By now it should be clear: this is a very special food offering indeed. The literary references nicely
highlight the fact that what might look today to be a relatively simple dish—rice, dal, ghee, milk,
sugar—is in fact something special. Value-added ingredients due to complex refining (ghee and sugar)
and laborious, time-consuming processing from raw materials (rice and dal) result in an indulgence,
as fine an offering as one can give to god. The two recipes that I have encountered for akkārat.alai in
the inscriptions slightly postdate the above literary references. One tenth-century recipe appears in
an incomplete inscription recorded in a Śaivite temple,73 which sadly does not indicate whether the

68 Nācciyār Tirumoli 9.6 (Venkatesan 2010, p. 172). nāru narum polil māliruñcōlai nampikku nān / nūru tat.āvil ven.n.ey vāynērntu
parāvi vaittēn / n¯ūru tat.ā nirainta akkāravat.icil connēn¯/ ēru ¯tiruvut.¯aiyān inru vantivai kol..luṅkolō?
¯ (Ān¯ tāl 1966, p. 56).
.. .
69 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯¯
Ibid., 9.7. inru vantittanaiyum amutu ceytit.ap peril nān / ōnru nūrāyiramāk kot.uttup pinnumāl.um ceyvan / tenral man.aṅ kamalum
¯¯
tirumāviruñcōlai tannul¯. / ninra pirān at.iyēn man¯attē vantu
¯ ¯ nēr
¯ patilē. (Āntāl 1966, p. 57).
¯¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯
¯¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . .. .
70 For the Vais.n.ava practice of offering akkāra at.icil while reciting Ān.t.āl.’s verses, see (Ān.t.āl. 2018). For the American diaspora
re-enactment of Ān.t.āl.’s offering, (Ahobila Math 2018).
71 Per George Hart’s dating in his foreword to (Hart 2005, p.ix).
72 tı̄m pāl at.icil amirtam sem pon van.n.ap pulukkal / ām pāl akkārat.alai an.pal nı̄r ūru amirtam / tām pālavarai nāt.it tantu ūt..tu ayarvār
coriya / ōmpā naru ney vel..lam¯ olukum van.¯ n.am kān.min (Tirukkatēvar 2018). ¯
73 ¯ ¯ ¯
The dating is unclear but certainly corresponds to the tenth century. The inscriptional notes indicate that it corresponds to
the third year of Uttama Cōla’s reign, so 972 CE, but this volume is for Parakesarivarman’s (Parantakan’s) reign, so perhaps
¯
910 CE. Inscription #60, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 29). Vol. 19. On the west wall of the Anantı̄svara ¯ temple, at
Ut.aiyārkūt.i, near Kāt.t.umannārkōyil, Cidambaram taluk, South Arcot district. This describes a land endowment endowed
by Mūttan Kāman alias Nārāyan.a Viluppērarayan, made after purchasing the land from another: “. . . for the daily offering
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 20 of 34

devotee’s donation was intended for the Śaivite temple where it was engraved or for another temple;
it was relatively common practice of the day to record a donation in one temple that was intended
for another. The other recipe appears in an eleventh-century inscription at the Tirumukkūt.al temple,
definitely Vais.n.ava. Offerings of akkārat.alai and more are for the Mahāvis.n.u at Tirumukkūt.al, a site
not far from Ceṅkalpat.t.u, relatively close to both Kanchipuram and Chennai.74
Since these recipes appear close both chronologically speaking and in terms of ingredients, I have
listed them in chart form for easy comparison (Table 1). Despite an unfamiliarity with classical
measurements,75 it is easy to tell at a glance that the later, eleventh-century Vais.n.ava offering is
significantly sweeter and richer in both sugar and ghee, even after compensating for a greater volume
of dal and milk used in the later recipe. Only one century later, we see over a doubling of sugar by
actual weight (a topic to which I will return a little later) and a quadrupling of ghee (by actual volume)
used in the recipe, making for an offering even better suited for god. Looking at the later amounts
of sugar and ghee in this rich dish, it is easier to comprehend the Jain resistance to such a decadent
religious culinary practice, as we saw in the Cı̄vakacintāman.i’s clash with Hindu ways of expressing
devotion to god.

Table 1. Akkāra at.icil recipes.

10th c. (ca. 972 CE) 11th c. (ca. 1067 CE)


aged rice 4 nālis 4 nālis
moong dal 2 nāl¯is 4 nāl¯is
milk 4 nāl¯is 6 nāl¯is
bananas 10 ¯ 8 ¯
less refined/brown sugar 14 palams 32 palams
(cakkarai)
ghee 1 ulakku 1 nāli (= 4 ulakku)
total volume (approx.) ¯ nālis
12.25 ¯ is
18 nāl ¯
sugar ratio (to total volume) ¯ meaning sugar makes up 1/7
0.14 (1/7, ¯
0.22 (2/9)
of total volume)
ghee ratio (to total volume) 0.02 (2%) of total dish (ghee makeup to 0.055 of total dish (5.5% of total
total volume 1/50) dish); 1/18

of sweet akkārat.iyal. . . with this land eternally is to be prepared. . . ." Recipe: “4 nālis of rice, 2 nālis of dal, 4 nālis of milk,
10 bananas, 14 palams carkarai (sugar), and 1 ulakku ghee.” ¯ ¯ ¯
74 ¯ ¯
Inscription #38, the Tirumukkūt.al inscription of Vı̄rarājendra (reigned 1063-1068 CE), line 34, (Archaeological Survey of
India 1939, pp. 235–49). Vol. 21. This inscription is from the fifth regnal year of Vı̄rarājendra, thus ca. 1067 CE, and mentions
the temple kitchen (mat.aipal..li), as other inscriptions do, being at Tirumukkūt.al with no mention of a mat.h (monastery) to
which it could have been attached, nor do we have any record of there being a mat.h near this locale. This might be useful in
correcting Breckenridge’s notion that there were no permanent temple kitchens on site at temples until the Vijayanagara
period based on the sole fact that we have no remaining Cōla period archeological remnants from such sites intact within
temple complexes (Breckenridge 1986, p. 29 and footnote 12, ¯ p. 46). Yet the fact that such structures had been given such
names by the tenth century suggested that, for temple-goers of the day, they understood whatever structure was there
and was called mat.aipal..li to be permanent and always present for the daily cooking of offerings. All pots in temples were
traditionally made of clay and destroyed after use and all fuel used for the kitchens was firewood; most temples would not
require a large building-like structures, so it is perhaps not so surprising that we do not have Cōla period archeological
remains of kitchens still attached to the archaeological remains of temples, which were certainly built¯ up and built over over
time. It might also be useful to revise our idea of “permanence” in the medieval temple context where the materials were
deliberately impermanent for purification’s sake. This inscription also remarkably records details of a hospital (!), school,
and hostel also attached to the temple—very rare for the period. Recipe: 4 nāli rice, 4 nāli paruppu (dal) or 1 kurun.i of payaru
(whole bean), 6 nālis milk, 1 nāli of ghee, 8 bananas, and 32 palams of sugar per ¯ day, prepared
¯ every day. ¯ ¯
75 ¯ ¯
Sugar is measured by weight, whereas other ingredients are measured by volume. For our purposes, this does not make too
much difference, except that it is challenging to convert the palam to the other set of measurements. I take one palam to equal
112 grams, and consider the Tamil palam to be equivalent to the Sanskrit palam. This follows Hultzsch’s and others’ values,
with the Sanskrit palam equaling four ¯ Sanskrit karsa and the Tamil palam, according to inscriptions (Archaeological Survey of
. ¯ uses these values (Archaeological Survey of India 1986,
India 1986), Vol. 2, inscription #127, equaling four kācu. Hultzsch
p. 75), Vol. 2 Part 1, in footnote 2, and D. C. Sircar also considers 4 kars.a to equal one palam (Sircar 1966, p. 227). I estimate
that one palam is approximately 112 grams, so slightly over one cup volume as we know it. Four ulakkus make one nāli.
¯ ¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 21 of 34

So, what about the bananas? As we saw earlier with Srirangam appam and kan.n.āmutu, it was not
uncommon to use fruits such as banana in a sweet offering for god, although I am hard-pressed to
find a modern-day recipe of cakkarai poṅkal that does. While in conversation with one temple head
priest’s wife, my suggestion of a theoretical addition of raisins—quite sweet to my mind—to cakkarai
poṅkal brought a grimacing look of disgust to her face: “raisins would make cakkarai poṅkal bitter!”76
Needless to say, modern taste has become so accustomed to extreme sweet that fruit is only found in
fruit offerings, like the temple offering of five fruits in coconut, sugar water, etc., i.e., pañcāmr.tam of the
Palani variety. On the other hand, a modern devotee cook might find lacking the absence of cashew
¯ ¯
nuts, today a perennial addition to cakkarai poṅkal. The cashew, of course, only arrived to the Indian
subcontinent with the Portuguese who brought it from Brazil, so it does not make an appearance in
Indian cooking until the sixteenth century CE, still quite early in comparison with the potato or tomato,
two other modern perennials of Indian cooking.

10. Feeding God


The whole point of discussing recipes (ingredient combination and ratio) as the epigraphical
record of naivedya for gods is that food preparation mattered to individuals, temples, and priests,
and not just to temple cooks—who already, presumably, knew the usual ratios—for the correct feeding
of gods. The inscriptions highlight the quantities and weights of ingredients because of the value of
such ingredients. The price of a sack of paddy mattered, as did the value of processed refined sugars
compared to less refined jaggery, the value of processed, threshed, hulled, and aged rice, cooked ghee,
dry spices, and any number of other ingredients. It is fortunate for us that the cost of ingredients
mattered when keeping accounts for inscriptional purposes; this is how we have access to these
medieval recipes in the first place.
Priests like Babu Shastri and scholars like Breckenridge have supposed that regular naivedya
practices in temples came about to sustain increasingly voluminous crowds of pilgrims who needed
refreshment during and following temple visits. However, I theorize that the feeding of gods as a
regular feature of temple life was more direct in intention: one feeds god to nourish god, with as lavish
an offering as one can offer on display in the public arena77 that is the Tamil temple (versus giving vast
offerings at home, which feeds and impresses the god, but impresses the community and visitors at
large less so) (Appadurai and Breckenridge 1976; Talbot 1991, 2001). I suggest that the Cōla medieval
¯
practice of offering naivedya for god is first and foremost for feeding, sustaining, and nourishing god,
which goes against the sociologico-functional explanation that naivedya was institutionalized to feed
large numbers of pilgrims.
In order to understand the actual function of naivedya, one must pay close attention to the
inscriptions themselves and to ideological concerns expressed in religious texts up through the Cōla
¯
period. Both the Cōla inscriptions and religious doctrinal texts suggest the theological reality of
¯
feeding the actual bodies of the gods held in these temples. The typical formula for these inscriptions
is that a certain amount of gold (or coin or land) is meant to pay for raw materials (usually paddy)
for ingredients for a certain festival day or ritual for the god held at a certain temple, and that this
amount of gold was invested in the temple treasury or with the temple capai (sabhā). Often these
inscriptions refer to the god directly by his or her name, usually the local name at that temple site.
But again and again, we see inscriptions that indicate that the offering is “for the tirumeni (holy body)
¯
at X [temple].” In one example from the Br.hadı̄śvara temple at Thanjavur (historically called Tañjai),
we read that each kaśu (coin) put in the treasury brings the interest to pay out for the four nālis of aged
¯
rice for the twice daily “holy offering for the holy body which has graciously appeared” (referring

76 Per my interview with Mrs. Rajeshvari, wife of head priest Mr. Sampat Bhattar of Kamāt.ciyamman temple in Kanchipuram,
held on 16 May 2015. ¯
77 For the idea of temple inscriptions as being the public theater, see (Karashima 1996, pp. 6–10).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 22 of 34

to appearing for processional viewing), with two nālis of rice being used each time, and then further
¯
detailing the quantity of each ingredient used in addition to the rice.78 In the Cōla inscriptions and in
¯
later devotional contexts,79 tirumeni (the holy body)80 is the standard term used for the image (where
¯
in Sanskrit we find the terms vigraha or mūrti) housed in the temple, whether it refers to the (often
sculpted) figure of a deity carried around during festival processions or to any of the fixed main icons
that permanently reside in temple sannitis (shrines).
¯¯
Leslie Orr first recognized this usage when pointing out that Cōla inscriptions frequently do not
¯
use any word at all to refer to the image housed in a temple. The direct mention of the name of the god
himself/herself carries with it the implication that the god’s actual “pervasive presence at a particular
sacred site. . . is of primary significance” (Orr 2004, p. 458). Orr indicates that tirumeni means “sacred
¯
form,”81 which it certainly does, as does Sanskrit vigraha in the sense of form (shape) of the body of
something. The first definition that the Tamil Lexicon gives for mēni is “body” in the literal sense of
¯
ut.ampu, which is how it was defined by the (roughly contemporaneous with Cōla inscriptions) Tamil
¯ ¯
lexicographer Piṅkala.
I think it is important not to downplay the physicality of divine embodiment, which using a
translation like “form” does, when the inscriptions donating foods to feed temple gods actually
indicate giving the offerings to the holy body residing at a given temple. This is especially true given
the theological understanding at the time that the god actually resides in the temple as a theophany
or embodiment and not some form, figure, or sculptural representation of a god who is elsewhere.
The Sanskrit equivalent appearing in other contexts is divyadeha (divine body) (Davis 1997, p. 37),
which, while indicating “divine” in some spiritual sense, equally indicates that one confronts the body
of god in temple.
Orr has discussed both “Śaiva Siddhānta and Śrı̄vais.n.ava theologies of ‘descent’ into image form,
which were being formulated by teachers of these traditions in the same period as the inscriptions were
being engraved on temple walls” (Orr 2004, p. 459). These theologies indicate that the divine presence
resides in the figure held in temple. Take, for example, Rāmānuja’s teachings (eleventh-twelfth century
CE; contemporaneous with the Cōla period) that advocated for the support of rituals performed on
¯
idols (vigrahas) as the bodies of gods. As Rāmānuja argued, Vis.n.u was bodily incarnated in the temple
deity’s arcā (image to be worshipped), so for Rāmānuja and, doubtless, for countless devotees of
the same era, “image worship” was “a practice of true knowledge, not illusion” (Davis 1997, p. 48,
footnote 28).82 Richard Davis also highlights the “(G)od’s actual embodiment” (Davis 1997, p. 50) in
temples with the “icon” as the “body for the god being worshiped” (Davis 1997, p. 46, emphasis added).
I cannot emphasize this idea enough when examining the actual practices of Hindu devotees of the
period, for it is fundamental for understanding the beliefs of medieval devotees and their behavior.
The abhis.ekam (bathing of the deity that precedes the naivedya feeding) is another example of taking
care of the body of the god, as is the application of unguents such as perfumed sandalwood paste that

78 Inscription #6 of Rājarājadeva, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, pp. 71–72), Vol. 2 Parts 1 & 2, line 7. “. . . eluntarul.uvitta
tirumenikkut tiru amurtukkuppotu pala arici irunāli āka iran..tu potaikku pala arici nānālikku nellukkurun.i irunāliyum¯ ney amutu
¯ provided¯ below this inscription,¯ one misses¯ the whole point,
potu. . . ¯” If one reads only the translation ¯ since ¯it reads “for (the
requirements of) the image,. . . (One) kurun.i and two nâr.i of paddy (are required) for (conversion into) four nâr.i of old rice (to
be used) for the sacred food (tiruvamudu) ¯ at both times (of the day)„—two nâri of old rice (being used) each time; four nâri of
. .
paddy for (one) âr.akku of ghee (ney-amudu),. . . .” For an understanding of my translation of eluntarul.uvitta, see (Orr 2004,
p. 459). ¯
79 The term tirumeni appears in the Tamil Vais.n.ava Kōyil Oluku (Anonymous 2007), an anecdotal history of the Srirangam
temple. ¯ ¯ ¯
80 It is also remarkable that this is a Tamil term, when many of the ritual terms used in these Cōla inscriptions are Tamilized
Sanskrit, and recognizably Sanskrit, as ¯ we see in this “mixed Tamil-Sanskrit” epigraphical ¯ “language” that Orr calls
“inscriptional Man.ipravāla” (Orr 2010, p. 327). ¯
81 (Orr 2004, p. 458, footnote 28). Orr also indicates in this footnote that the term tirumeni also frequently appears in Jain
donative inscriptions to indicate that the physical “image”/mūrti was set up by a given donor. ¯ She also discusses this term
in (Orr 2010, p. 338).
82 For details on Rāmānuja’s theology, see (Carman 1974) and (Carman and Narayanan 1989, pp. 34–42).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 23 of 34

is another upacāra included in the full pūjā worship (which was otherwise typically performed on royal
bodies, for kings and princes). The ritual inclusion of intimate moments such as screening the god
before bathing and changing his/her clothes, combing the hair in specific festival rituals, and showing
the god his/her own image in a small mirror all accentuate the bodily and embodied aspects of icon
worship. Combing a god’s hair is not just sevā (service) but is taking care of the body of a god.
Again, Orr points us in the right direction in her analysis of various donations of valuable wedding
tālis (necklaces) to goddesses who, as married goddesses, ought to wear tālis and not appear without a
wife’s appropriate adornment, like not being fully clothed (Orr 2007, pp. 116–17). In these and similar
Cōla donative instances, the devotees act in the manner of family, as family members would acquire
¯
the tāli for a daughter to be married. Orr’s argument is that donations often establish kinship-like
relations between donor and god, and that inscriptions themselves describe a family relationship
between donor and god, in various cases referring to the goddess as the donor’s daughter (Orr 2007,
pp. 117–18).83 Following Orr’s proposal, it makes perfect sense to feed one’s god (daily and regularly)
as a way of taking care of the god’s body, just as one takes care of a daughter or son’s body with
regular feeding.
Seen in this light, I think it is correct to attribute the motivations for Cōla-period naivedya practices
¯
to medieval Hindu devotees’ priorities of serving and feeding god, in particular, taking care of,
maintaining, and sustaining a god’s body. I would not attribute naivedya practices to any secondary
resulting effect of having a fair amount of food at temple, which doubtless could be used to feed
priests, their families who also caretake at the temple, other temple workers, or visitors. Cōla period
¯
inscriptions make the most mention of feeding the gods, occasional mention of feeding Śivayogins,
religious devouts, Brahmins attached to temples, or Śrı̄vais.n.avas (locals), and much rarer mention
of feeding pilgrims and first-time visitors called apūrvis in the inscriptions, people who have “never
before been seen” at the temple.84 It is also clear from the inscriptional record that donations for
feeding religious devouts, Brahmins, and Śrı̄vais.n.avas are not donations for naivedya; there is never
mention of giving these meals to the god.
Feeding god—and this means the body of god—was a priority during the Cōla period. While the
¯
counted examples of detailed recipes for naivedya dish preparation are rare, we have a vast number
of other Cōla-period donative inscriptions whose sole communication is coins or land donated for
¯
naivedya or tiruvamutu. Feeding the gods mattered even when the nitty gritty of ingredient quantities,
measurements, and type of spice did not. Nonetheless, through the rare recipes we find, we see
remarkable interest in precision on the part of the donor in specifying exact quantities and ingredients,
in the same way that a grandmother insists on adding just so much spice to a dish or not failing to
add some special secret ingredient. The donation—just like a specially prepared cooked dish—is
meaningful to a donor because of the details. Fittingly, the old proverb clues us in: God, in fact, is in
the details.
As a side note, I must acknowledge one common strain of religious thought that contends that the
gods in temples do not actually eat the naivedya offered to them but instead smell the fragrant aromas
from the food.85 This is evident even today if one catches the usually deliberately private act of a priest
offering naivedya to a mūrti, as I have witnessed on occasion (at the Nittiyakaliyān.a Perumāl. temple

83 Orr describes how female donative practices sought to link the goddess to the donor’s female kin and connect the donor
to the goddess (Orr 2007, p. 117). Orr refers to ARE 720 of 1916, an inscription of a woman serving the Pān.t.iyan kings
who “set up an image of the goddess, in the name of her daughter and named after her daughter, to which she presented
jewels and other gifts to support worship.” She also mentions two tenth-century inscriptions that refer to goddess Umā as
their daughter (Archaeological Survey of India 1986), Vol. 19, #404, and a male donor of the same period who claimed “the
goddess Uma as his daughter, provided “her with land to support daily worship and offerings, and” gave “her in marriage
to the lord of the temple (ARE 151 of 1836-37)" (Orr 2007, pp. 117–18).
84 (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 79) Vol. 3, Parts 1 & 2, inscription #35, line 17, and (Orr 2004, p. 452). The mentions
of apūrvis indicate that other mentions of feeding devouts, Śivayogins, and Śrı̄vais.n.avas were a local matter of regulars at a
given temple.
85 Per my interview with Mr. Babu Shastri (2015) and my anonymous informants. Also see (Malamoud 1996, p. 38).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 24 of 34

and at the Kāñci Ēkāmparanātar temple). The priest, holding the tal.ikai (plate) of naivedya in one hand,
lifts the cover (usually a cloth or leaves, today often a section of silk saree) and uses the first two
fingers and thumb to waft the aroma from the cooked offering in the deity’s direction. This implies that
gods might not savor their food but simply smell the aroma and live off the ambrosia of the wafting
vācanai (scent). This interpretation explains why traditional Hindus do not smell or taste food while
¯
cooking it (one should not even smell it before offering to the god; it would be otherwise “enjoyed” and
spoiled before the god can enjoy it). This is also meant to explain why naivedya is covered (traditionally
with cloth or leaves) while being carried from the temple mat.aipal..li after preparation to the sanniti for
¯¯
offering (which of course ignores the fact of wanting to protect the food from dust and insects).
I do not intend to discredit this idea; I will simply state that it makes no appearance anywhere in
the inscriptions, nor does scent or aroma at all. The aromatic components of pūjā worship are present
in the upacāras of anulepana, the application of usually scented and fragrant unguents, which is not
coincidentally also known as gandha (perfuming) and in the dhūpa (the incensing or “fumigating” of
the god), and not necessarily a feature of the upacāra of naivedya, according to traditional dharmaśāstric
understanding of pūjā. This is not to say that aroma is not an important facet of many parts of pūjā,
including the feeding with naivedya. Even the upacāra of pus.pa (offering flowers) is meant to be with
flowers that are fragrant and not with flowers that have no aroma, which would be an offense to god
(Kane 1942, p. 733, citing the Vis.n.udharmasūtra). So, while the fragrance of food is an aspect not to
be ignored in naivedya nor in other upacāras, this facet of divine consumption does not appear in the
inscriptional discourse. I thus contend that Cōla inscriptions account for the actual feeding of divine
¯
bodies, and that this idea is consistent with the epigraphy of the period, regardless of other theological
understandings of naivedya as appreciated by god(s) through aroma.

11. Made Sweeter for God


The recipes examined above may appear deceptively simple to our eyes today but we must
not mistake carkarai ponakam or spiced and sugared Srirangam appam as humble cuisine.86 Bear
¯ ¯
in mind that, historically, processing foods from raw materials consisted of numerous laborious,
painstaking, lengthy procedures. Processing paddy into aged raw rice required numerous steps, pack
animals for threshing, stone machines for hulling, and months from harvest time to being ready
for consumption.87 Dals also required similar processes (although shorter) to prepare the bean, dry,
and split it using heavy stone machines. But the ingredient that required perhaps the most complex
technologies for processing was the sugar used in these naivedya dishes, even though this sugar would
have been much more like the least refined dark muscovado sugar that we can find today.88 In some
temple offerings, the more refined white crystal rock sugar was required and indicated by the terms
pañcatārai or kan..tacarkar[ai];89 the cakkarai that is “sugar” in these Cōla recipes is much more like the
¯ ¯
muscovado type and not the jaggery that epigraphists have typically considered it to be.90 There is
some confusion among epigraphers that carkarai refers to jaggery due to incorrectly assuming that
¯

86 I use Laudan’s distinction of high and humble cuisines to designate elite culinary practices in relation to the cuisines of the
masses. It is important to still designate both and all culinary cultures as “cuisine” in revision of earlier definitions of what
qualifies as cuisine and what does not (Laudan 2013, pp. 2, 7, and elsewhere).
87 For a thorough study, see (Greenland 1997). Monica L. Smith comments on the high investment of labor, threshing, and
storage at (Smith 2006, p. 484).
88 What is sold as muscovado (light in color) is still more refined and treated than early India’s śarkarā would have been: closer
to the darkest, lumpiest muscovado you can find rarely today at quite a price in some specialty shops importing this darkest
of sugars prepared using artisanal traditional methods.
89 For kan..tacarkarai in Cōla-era inscriptions, see (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 188), Vol. 3 Parts 1 & 2, inscription
¯ line 7, and
#80 (ca. 1126), ¯ (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 299), Vol. 7, inscription #485, lines 6–7. Please note that
both of these inscriptions require rock sugar candy to be given as a separate offering to god, not to be used in a culinary
preparation. For Vijayanagara-period uses of rock sugar candy in recipes (pañcatārai), see (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry
1998, p. 26), Vol. 4, inscription #12, and elsewhere.
90 Per V. Vijayaraghavacharya and Sadhu Subrahmanya Sastry’s translations in the (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998).
However, the (University of Madras 1936) correctly defines carkarai as sugar, not jaggery.
¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 25 of 34

the technology did not exist for refining sugar into white crystals. However, it is important to point
out that the sugar-refining technologies in use in early India lost ground to the “modern” imported
western industrial methods of refining and cannot be found practiced in India from the mid-nineteenth
century.91 Further, mentions of rock candy in Cōla inscriptions and of white sugar in contemporaneous
¯
texts from other part of South India doubly confirm that these sugar refining technologies did exist.
The historical methods of sugar-making reach far back into the classical period and there are
abundant early references to white processed sugar as (Sanskrit) sitā,92 a word which means white.
Even if not as white as bleached sugar is today, it certainly indicated a type of sugar known for its
light color. Since these inscriptions do indicate when the sugar is rock sugar (white and more refined),
and since we do have other references to jaggery blocks in early inscriptions as karuppu kat..ti,93 in Cōla
¯
epigraphy, carkarai refers to soft brown sugar.94
¯
This carkarai, then, is a highly refined product from the sugarcane plant that requires great skill,
¯
technology, and labor to produce, and is hence a value-added food.95 It comes as no surprise that we
find such a prestigious food item in most temple recipes, even in aromatic naivedya with pepper and
cumin. Sugar adds crispness to foods (like in appam or dosa), gives a golden, browned color to cooked
dishes (the border of cookies and cakes), balances the savory, spicy, and acidic components in a dish
(as in pasta sauce), and most importantly, is a natural preservative, retarding food spoilage, something
that is significant in hot tropical South India. Despite these other various motivations that might have
spurred its addition in temple dishes, the fact remains that sugar is valuable and worth offering to god
simply because it is sweet and good, like the divine experience.96 Offerings to god should be sweet,
even when savory!
We find similar usages of sugar, sweets, and products made from refined sugar in European
and Latin American Catholic preparations, where religious monasteries actually dominated the
sugar-refining technologies and processes, typically being the sweet and confectionery makers in
medieval and early modern towns and cities. In medieval Europe as in medieval Tamil temples, there
was a definite association between giving sweets to god, and the control of sweet production and
usage at religious and monastery sites. Food historian Rachel Laudan may be correct in crediting the
early Indian Buddhist monasteries with a great deal of the maintenance of sugar-refining technologies,
machines, and skills (Laudan 2013, pp. 113–14), for it is through the Buddhists in India of the first
millennium CE that the Chinese learned the techniques of sugar refinery, later adding their own
variations to the process.97 Similarly, in the monasteries and convents of medieval Europe that were

91 (Naik 1922) describes the traditional Indian sugar refining, already by that time only in demand among orthodox Hindus
due to the high cost of production and not being able to compete with sugar production in Indian factories using imported
modern methods. The industry was only still surviving in 1922 due to religious sentiment for traditional methods. I credit
James Mchugh for bringing this and other information regarding sugar to my attention.
92 In the Suśruta Sam . hitā, which has a terminus ante quem of fifth century CE for the latest layers of the text, per (Wujastyk 1998,
pp. 104–5). The twelfth-century (Someśvara III 1961, p. 134) refers to white sugar as sitā, v. 1578 and elsewhere, and also
details one process of how to whiten and refine sugar from the śarkarā and the four stages of candy making, p. 121, vv.
1412–16. For two thorough studies of sugar-making in early India, see (von Hinüber 1971) and (Gopal 1964).
93 The inscription is a public testimony recording that Villiyān.d.ān-Alakapperumāl. and his brothers had committed a sin
¯ ¯
against the Brāhman.as in stealing and utilizing the temple food offerings, especially “the jaggery (karuppu kat..ti mit.āvai) for
the purpose of food-offerings to the deity Tiruttal.iyān.d.anāyanār” (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 157, Vol. 25,
inscription #125). Dated 1290 CE (the reign of reign of Māravarman ¯ Kulaśekhara I) and located on the south wall of the first
¯
prākāra of the Tiruttal.ı̄śvara temple in Tiruppattūr, Tirupattur ¯ Ramanathapuram District.
taluk,
94 But not the kind they sell in the supermarket today, which is refined white sugar with molasses added back in. For a detailed
description of sugar classifications and terminology, and processes, see (Mchugh, In progress).
95 Like ghee, sugar also has a “long shelf life (important in India) and a high value-to-weight ratio,” both easily “traded over
long distances” (Laudan 2013, p. 114).
96 For Tamil bhakti saint-poets such as Śaivite Mān.ikkavācakar likening the divine experience to sugar, see, among numerous
examples, ¯ Tiruccatakam #90 in (Cutler 1987, p. 165). For the historical comparison of the sugar-refining process to alchemy,
see (Laudan 2013, p. 110 and elsewhere). For sugar representing the ideal of goodness in Catholicism, Buddhism, and Islam,
see (Laudan 2013, p. 177).
97 (Mazumdar 1998, pp. 20–33) and (Kieschnick 2003, pp. 254–62). “In 647, the emperor Taizong sent an envoy to India
charged with learning the secrets of sugar making. He returned with six monks and two artisans, who established sugar
manufacturing south of Hangchow, where the climate was favorable to sugarcane,. . . Like the Indians, the Chinese used
Religions 2018, 9, 270 26 of 34

sites of sugar refining industries, sugar-derived products were first medicinal in purpose and then
produced as confections for consumption before and after fasting, for festival days (Laudan 2013,
p. 177). In the Iberian empire, we see a similar phenomenon: the religious missionary-driven spread of
sugar-refining technologies98 and the colonial production of sugar cane on New World plantations led
to nunneries leading in the confectionary production of sweets at Catholic convents in the New World
as well as at Iberian colonies elsewhere, such as among Portuguese Jesuit nuns at Goa (Laudan 2013,
p. 195). Without a doubt, medieval and early modern religious culinary cultures around the world
were heavily laden with sugar and dishes involving refined sugar products.
Seen from this perspective, the religious priority of using value-rich sugar in most Tamil temple
offerings is obvious. But is a rise in sugar usage over time detectable in the data? It is possible to
observe an increase in the prevalence of sweet preparations overall in the Cōla period inscriptional
¯
record (compared to unsweetened dishes, Tables 2 and 3) which is also confirmed by an even greater
increase in sweet dish prevalence in the Vijayanagara period inscriptions, with a greater variety of
sweet dishes offered as donative foods (Tables 4 and 5).99 The inscriptional data not only suggest a
greater presence and frequency of sugar’s appearance in temple offerings as time passes, but also
reflect increased sugar usage over time, determined by quantity or weight of sugar used. For the Cōla
¯
period, although my data is not completely exhaustive, it is apparent that sugar gradually appears
more frequently used in temple recipes, with 25% of tenth-century recipes containing sugar, 50% of
eleventh-century recipes requiring sugar, and 100% of thirteenth-century recipes calling for sugar.
By gross volume of sugar used in these same Cōla recipes, the amount increases from an average of six
¯
palams required per recipe in the tenth century, to twenty-seven palams required per donative offering
in the eleventh century, to an impressive two hundred and three palams needed per offering in the
thirteenth century.100

milk to whiten sugar, though they used their own edge-runner presses rather than the Indian ox-driven pestles and mortars.
The Chinese produced several grades and kinds of sugar, most of them soft and brown” (Laudan 2013, p. 120).
98 Augustinian missionary “Martin de Rada, on a mission to one of China’s major sugar manufacturing areas, Fujian, reported
on it to both Spain and Mexico. Other missionaries studied sugar-making methods in India and China.” All happening
primarily in the sixteenth century, with the mill technologies transferred much earlier from India to China, per (Laudan
2013, p. 193), who also cites (Daniels and Daniels 1988, pp. 527–30).
99 In my survey, out of twenty-three completely described Tirupati Vijayanagara recipes, seventeen (74%) contain some form
of sugar. Newer varieties for the inscriptional record include: atirasam, sweet tōcai (dosa), cukiyan (modern sukhiyan), and
cit.ai (modern cı̄t.ai). Compare this to nine out of a total eighteen (or 50%) complete recipes from the ¯ Cōla period inscriptions
calling for sugar. ¯
100 The conversion from nāli to palam is challenging, since palam is a weight measure and nāli volume, but I calculate that if:
¯
1 kācu = 28 grs. (per (University ¯ 1 palam = 112 gr., so there are
of Madras 1936)), and 4 kācu = 1 palam (per (Sircar 1966)), then
9 palams to the kg. There are 5 ālākku to the kg., and 8 ālākkus to the pat.i (per (University of Madras 1936, p. 253 & p. 2435)),
and 1.6 kgs. to the pat.i. So, 1 kg.¯ is 0.625 of a nāli, hence
¯ 2 nālis = 1.25 kg, which is approx. 11.25 palams.
¯ ¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 27 of 34

Table 2. Cōla period data.


¯
10th c. 11th c. 13th c.
10th c. 11th c. 12th c. 13th c.
inscriptions inscriptions 12th c. inscriptions
inscriptions inscriptions w/no inscriptions
w/no w/no w/sugar w/no
w/sugar w/sugar sugar w/sugar
sugar sugar sugar
6 (32 palams;
20 palams;
11/2 kācu [= no recipes no recipes
3/8 palam]; 1 available available 2 (6 palams &
3 1 (6 palams) 6 0
kācu [=1/4 from data from data 400 palams)
palam]; 100 source source
palams; 10
palams)
% w/out % with % w/out % w/out % with % w/out
% with sugar % with sugar
sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per
(per cent.) (per cent.)
century) century) cent.) cent.) cent.) cent.)
0% w/out 100% w/
75% 25% 50% 50% — —
sugar sugar
average average
average amt. average amt.
amt. of amt. of
of sugar per of sugar per
sugar per sugar per
recipe in this recipe in this
recipe in recipe in
cent. cent.
this century this cent.
6 27.1 203
palams/recipe palams/recipe — palams/recipe
(average) (average) (average)

Table 3. Cōla data by inscription in chronological order.


¯

Year in CE (ca., Calculated According to Amount of Sugar Required in Recipe (Unless


Regnal Year of King) Otherwise Indicated, Sugar Means Muscovado Type)
914–915 —
930 —
930 —
972 14 palams
1013 —
1013 1 1/2 kācu (= 3/8 palam)
1013 —
1013 1 kācu (= 1/4 palam)
1013 —
1013 —
1067–8 32 palams
1067–8 20 palams
1067–8 —
1067–8 —
1067–8 10 palams
1087 100 palams
1237 6 palams of karuppukkat.t.i (jaggery block)
1253 400 palams
Religions 2018, 9, 270 28 of 34

Table 4. Vijayanagara period data.

15th c. w/ no 15th c. w/ 16th c. w/ no 17th c. w/


14th c. w/ no 14th c. w/
sugar in sugar in sugar in sugar in
sugar sugar
inscription inscription inscription inscription
2 recipes (2
0 recipes 0 recipes 6 recipes 5 recipes 10 recipes
nāli + 2 nāli)
¯ ¯
% w/out % with % w/out % with % w/out % with
sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per sugar (per
century) century) cent.) cent.) cent.) cent.)
0% 100% 0% 100% 33% 66%
average amt. average amt. average amt.
of sugar per of sugar per of sugar per
recipe in recipe in recipe in
this century this cent. this cent.
11.25 45 75
palams/recipe palams/recipe palams/recipe

Table 5. Vijayanagara period data by inscription in chronological order.

Year in CE (ca. Calculated According to Amount of Sugar Required in Recipe (Unless


Regnal Year of King or Approx.) Otherwise Indicated, Sugar Means Muscovado Type)
1393 2 nāli (= approx. 11.25 palams)
1393 2 nāl¯i
1434 ¯
10 palams
1445 50 palams
1445 50 palams
1445 50 palams
1445 50 palams
1457 60 palams
1530 — (no sugar)
1530 1 vı̄cai = 40 palams
1531 25 vı̄cai of pañcatārai (hard rock candy sugar) for 100
tōcai (dosa) offerings, means 10 palams/dish of offering
1532 1900 palams/19 dishes, so 100 palams/dish of offering
1533 110 palams of pañcatārai (hard rock candy sugar)
1534 — (no sugar)
1534 30 palams
1534 100 palams
1534 — (no sugar)
1534 100 palams
1534 100 palams
1534 100 palams
1534 60 palams
1534 — (no sugar)
1535 — (no sugar)

For fear of my data being potentially misleading in its conclusions, I should point out that the
sample of available data for the Cōla thirteenth century is rather reduced, limiting the extent of my
¯
findings. Furthermore, over time, we do see an increase in overall volume of donative offerings at a
more impressive scale, meaning that some increase in the amount of sugar would be expected over
time, to balance the generally larger offerings being given in temples. Also, what we know from the
literary mention of dishes like akkāra at.icil suggests that sweet offerings always made up a significant
and noteworthy aspect of donative gifting of food to gods in temple, even in times preceding the
Cōla period. With this, I do not want to imply that an increase in use of sugar in food offerings was a
¯
particular feature of the Cōla period. At this time, my data must remain suggestive instead of entirely
¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 29 of 34

conclusive, but there is at least a definite trend in increased prevalence of sugar in donative food
offerings as time progressed and an increase in the volume of sugar used in such offerings over time,
which are perhaps significant enough findings for religious gifting in and of themselves.

12. What is Missing?


Any temple prasād connoisseur will have quickly realized a few key items of prasād that are
notably absent from my evidence. Two of the most famous are Kanchipuram idli and the famed
Tirupati laddu. Kanchipuram or kōyil idli, steamed inside leaves in a large basket, weighing in at
over three kilograms, and well over a foot long before slicing,101 has attained such popularity that it
is now de rigueur even outside of religious contexts at receptions across India. Tirupati laddu is also
notorious for its impressive size, although the pilgrim’s laddu (still large after recent downsizing) is
much smaller than the massive thirty-two kilogram laddus prepared for Vis.n.u on special occasions.
While temple elders will assure you that these forms of prasād have been prepared at temples since
time immemorial,102 both of these must be late modern variants on earlier naivedya formulas. The
Vijayanagara Tirupati inscriptions do not mention laddu, although it could be related to the manoharam
that appears in a few inscriptions.103 The earliest epigraphic references to idli also appear during
the Vijayanagara period,104 although we have no way to gauge how big these idlis were at the time,
whether steamed very large in the modern Kanchipuram style, or small and hand-sized, as are the
dosas served to Vis.n.u at the Srirangam temple and elsewhere. We do have references pre-dating the
Vijayanagara period to pan.n.iyāram type preparations such as pit..tu (which is typically steamed, as is
idli),105 although it seems unlikely that what used to be the pan.n.iyārāppam called pit..tu would later
appear under the name idli, when there are mentions of idli in Cōla-era sources outside the temple
¯
context.106
Another important ingredient for naivedya that seems notoriously absent is curry leaves. While
we do find occasional references to dry spices such as coriander seed, turmeric, and small mustard
seed in the inscriptions,107 we do not find mention of fresh aromatic leaves. I suspect that these are

101 (Lakshmi and Ramakrishnan 2018). Note: the recipes given in this article in no way resemble the actual preparation of
Kanchipuram idli cooked at the Varadaraja Perumal temple, per my interview with Mrs. Rajeshwari, wife of Mr. Sampat
Bhattar, head priest at Varadaraja Perumal, 16 May 2015.
102 Per my interview with Mrs. Rajeshwari, 16 May 2015.
103 Breckenridge describes manoharam as “a sweet, round ball of green and Bengal gram roasted (sic, fried) in ghee and rolled
in a sugar syrup,” (p. 39) but earlier wrote that manoharam was “a pretzel-like sweet” (p. 35) that she footnotes with
“Some speculate that this is the antecedent to the now famous sweet called lad.d.u which is distributed at the temple today”
(Breckenridge 1986, p. 48, footnote 24). Not only do her definitions disagree with each other, but the inscriptions give no
actual indication that the sweet would have been ball- or pretzel-shaped; see Inscription #134 of (Vijayaraghavacharya and
Sastry 1998, pp. 243–47, Vol. 4, line 6 and surrounding). There is no way to determine the shape based on historical evidence.
Further, this does not quite agree with the epigraphers’ (slightly confused) equation of modern manōhara-pat.i (sic, appears in
inscriptions as manokara) with tirukkan.āmat.ai, which they describe as a kind of cake/cake offering (Vijayaraghavacharya
and Sastry 1998, p. v, Vol. 4), which also disagrees with the general consensus for the modern period that manohara is a
ball-shaped sweet with puffed rice very different from kan.n.amat.ai.
104 Inscription #38 (1535 CE), line 3 of (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998, p. 76, Vol. 4): “For twelve it..tali-p-pat.is (one pat.i
offering for each of the festival days): 1 vat..ti and 4 marakkāl of rice measured with the Tirumalai measure, 12 marakkāl of
black gram, and 12 nāli and 1 uri of ghee.” This seems like a lot of ghee, although the actual Kanchipuram recipe for Kanchi
idli (which is not as it¯ is presently cooked) calls for ghee as well (per my interview with Mrs. Rajeshwari, 16 May 2015).
105 Inscription #43, lines 3–4 and surrounding, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, pp. 35–36, Vol. 30). Lady Amat.t.an
Sivan.aimulutud.aiyāl. gifted pit..tu for Lord Murukan in 1237 CE (around the twenty-ninth year of Vı̄rarājēndra’s rule) in
Tirumurugan ¯ pūnti: “For the holy panniyārāppam for the
¯ pittu amutu offering, given each Sunday, 4 nālis of rice, 1 coconut, 1 uri
¯ .. .. .. ¯
of dal, and 6 palams of jaggery cubes (karuppu-k-kat..ti).” The inscription also seems to list a small quantity (kān.a) of salt (a half
pit.i [handful]): “pit..tamutukku tiruppan.n.iyārāppattukku arici nānāliyum teṅkāy onrum (sic) paruppuriyuṅ karuppukkat..tiyaraip
palamum kāna upporupi[t..tu] araipit.i. . . ” ¯ ¯
106 Mānasollāsa (1131 CE) idli recipe at v. 1397cd-1401 (Someśvara III 1961, pp. 127–28, Part 2).
107 Inscription #17, Vol. 21 of (Archaeological Survey of India 1939, pp. 109–10). Located in the Subramanya temple on the
first slab, first face, in Tirucchendūr village, Tinnevelly district, this carving lists the five spices as pepper, turmeric, cumin,
small mustard, and coriander. K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyar discusses the dry spices as kāyam (a Tamilized word from Skt.
ks.āra, Prakritized as khāra and also Tamilized as kāram) on p. 102 and cites similar Tamil words with semivocalic shifts of
ra and ya, i.e., we see both peruṅkāram and peruṅkāyam for asafetida, and veṅkāram and¯ veṅkāyam for onion. Lines 41–43:
kāyam mil.a[kamitu] mañjal. amitu cı̄raka amitu ciru kat.ukamitu kottamba[ri amitu] ērri-kkāyam aintu. While kottampari/kottamalli is
¯ ¯¯
Religions 2018, 9, 270 30 of 34

simply left out of the inscriptions because their acquisition did not involve an exchange of values in the
temple treasury and storehouse, through which raw materials such as paddy and ingredients and dry
grains like ghee or urad dal would be accessed. Epigraphic references abound to nantavanams on site
¯
at temple complexes. These gardens were intended to grow flowers to offer to and garland gods; they
also included orchard trees, according to the inscriptional evidence.108 I suspect fresh greens would
have been obtained directly—when available—from these temple gardens, so there was no need to
endow funds to secure a regular supply of green produce such as curry leaves. If this is the case, it
could be hard to isolate what might be missing from these recipes. Taking a small amount of leaves
from the temple garden would not require an attentive transfer of funds for food from the treasury and
would hence not be recorded in the inscription. Only spices that were not available in the immediate
locale, however, would appear in the inscriptional record, as happens with salt, even if coming from
a relatively nearby salt field. Spices’ storage at the temple pan..tāram (bhān.d.āram) would necessitate
accounting for how much to dole out in exchange for a certain value taken from the donation’s interest.
A similar phenomenon might be at work with some vegetable items that could potentially have
been procured on site from the temple nantavanam as well. We do find explicit mention of vegetables
¯
in some inscriptions,109 but in many inscriptional recipes, vegetables seem absent where one would
expect them.110 In these cases, inscriptions list a total amount of paddy required for a number of
offerings, and it is unclear if this is meant to be exchanged for fresh vegetables at market, if a gross
total value was listed in paddy for all goods required in cooking the offerings (as is sometimes evident
from the text), or if the vegetables might not also have been obtained from the temple garden. One
recipe for a vegetable offering (kāykkari amutu) in an inscription dated ca. 1013 calls for one and a half
¯
cevit.u of pepper and three cevit.u of mustard seed, explicitly lists no amount of vegetable, but does
list a bulk amount of paddy and salt required in common among a number of amutu dishes.111 In
other instances, whether vegetables are actually involved remains uncertain: when a dish is called
kariyamutu, it might or might not actually have a vegetable, although one suspects that it would. But in
¯
this case of the kāykkari amutu, the name explicitly indicates vegetables. This same ca. 1013 inscription
¯
details a porikkari amutu (fried curry or fried vegetable offering) and only lists the amount of ghee
¯ ¯
required, three cevit.u, without indicating the vegetable quantity. Salt and paddy requirements are
shared among all offerings, so again, one cannot be sure if the paddy amount refers to a value that
could be used to procure fresh vegetables or if the vegetables simply came from the temple garden.
Less of a mystery—although perhaps surprising to some considering the implicit hierarchy of god
over earthly kings—is the absence of very spiced, flavored, and contrived dishes that we find in royal
culinary manuals of the same period.112 The multi-step elaboration in royal recipes is not present in

usually reserved in modern usage for the coriander/cilantro leaf, since this inscription refers to spices purchased for temple
use, logic suggests that it must refer to the dried seed.
108 Inscriptions discuss the gardens’ expansion, caretakers, tree planting, and more, for example in Vol. 3, Inscription #302,
(Archaeological Survey of India 1986).
109 As in Vol. 21, inscription #17, (Archaeological Survey of India 1939), discussed just above. Also in Vol. 1, inscription #207 (in
the Tirumalai temple, 1434 CE), (Vijayaraghavacharya and Sastry 1998, p. 209), around line 37. The vegetables are included
in the paruppuviyal tiruppōnakam, a boiled dal offering, to me resembling modern aviyal, to Breckenridge resembling sundal,
(Breckenridge 1986, p. 40),¯ in spite of the addition of vegetables in the inscription.
110 We see the vegetables specified in a recipe for kari amutu (vegetable offering). Inscription #2 (discussed earlier), appendix to
¯
Vol. 32, line 5, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 388). Corresponds to the twenty-third year of Parakesarivarman’s
(Parāntakan I)’s rule, i.e., 930 CE. Located on the jagati (south), in the central shrine of the Chandraśēkhara temple,
Tiruccentur¯ai, Trichy taluk, in Trichy district, describing offerings to be made to the god at Īśānamaṅkālam, on the occasion
of the first¯ feeding of Bhūti Parāntakan’s son: “for this, three times a day, 6 nālis of paddy [are required], and for the
vegetables given three times a day, 6 nālis of paddy, and for the spices, salt, and ¯ tamarind, 3 nālis of paddy [value is
required].”. . . kariyamutu potu munrukku nel¯ aru nāliyum kāyattukkum uppukkum pulikkum nel munnāliyum. ¯ ..
¯ ¯¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯¯ ¯
111 Vol. 2 Parts 1 & 2, inscription #26, (Archaeological Survey of India 1986, p. 127). This is the inscription with the appakkāy
recipe discussed earlier.
112 Cf. recipes in (Someśvara III 1961) and (Mahārājanala 1983). Examples of contrived elaborations include adding flowers to
perfume a dish and removing them before service, fumigating dishes, chopping vegetables and other ingredients all to the
same size as the rice for the trompe l’oeil effect that the whole dish consists of rice alone, and disguising meat dishes in the
shape of vegetables to trick the diners.
Religions 2018, 9, 270 31 of 34

temple recipes, confirming that religious cuisine stands in contrast to royal cuisine as a distinct culinary
mode. Royal food is, indeed, regal in a way that temple food is not.113 Food for god is still costly in the
processed, refined quality of its ingredients even before it becomes transvalued following consumption
by the god, whereafter it becomes prasād.114 Food for god secondarily is distinguished in value by
the quantities offered, the vastness of the donative offering, and the number of dishes, in some cases.
Nonetheless, temple food remains closer to the spectrum’s end of humble cuisine rather than high
cuisine (Laudan 2013, p. 2 & p. 7), and was often served to large numbers of temple workers, foremost
among which were the priests, of course. Because they represent humble cuisine, examining these
precious temple recipes offers us insight into the common person’s diet, or at least more information
concerning the diets and gustatory experiences of a broader population base than we may otherwise
glimpse.

13. Conclusion: Carving Out a Place for Culinary Textual Studies Using Medieval Cōla Epigraphy
¯
My case studies have illustrated key facets of medieval Hindu ritual offerings and have traced a
historical development of naivedya as one component (upacāra) of pūjā from its basic form of white rice
(śuddhānnam) through increasingly elaborate offerings, meals, and delicacies for god. Ponakam, the term
¯
for any basic cooked offering, was the original palimpsest for the dish (and eponymous festival) poṅkal.
Ponakam also appeared in variants offerings of cooked milk, cooked dals, and more, and its prominence
¯
in naivedya led to its later usage in the sense of the full meal served to god, the alaṅkāra naivedya. From
the inscriptions, I have also been able to equate kan.n.āmutu, a sweet offering still given to Vis.n.u today,
with the Cōla offering of kan.n.amat.ai. Further, a recipe for appam from one of the most important sites
¯
of temple worship past and present—Srirangam—illustrates to us that medieval taste was different
from ours today, but also confirms the traditional Hindu principle that appam/apūpam was intended
as a special delicacy for rare festival occasions and not an everyday food. Examining some sour
recipes allows us to explore another aspect of South Indian taste: the preference for acidic, tangy, and
fermented flavors (like tamarind or very sour yogurt) that persisted from the early caṅkam period up
to the present day. Valuable recipes for akkāra at.icil prove that foods mentioned in “non-historical”
sources (narrative, epic, and rhetorical writing, as well as in devout religious poetry) existed in actual
historical practice. This finding suggests that many other genres of writing do contain historical
content on material culture worth the historian’s examination today.
Through my survey of the temple epigraphic record, I have shown that premodern Tamil recipes
¯
did not follow the same formula as recipes familiar to us today, but that they are recipes nonetheless.
The inscriptions are in themselves artifacts both textual and physical, and merit our study in that they
allow access to other historical artifacts otherwise impossible to experience: the intangible cultural
heritage of cooked dishes and culinary practices of the past. The inscribed recipes’ level of detail
confirms that the intricacies of food preparation really mattered to devotees because they cared about
feeding gods well just as they would care about feeding their family well. Understood from the
medieval perspective, naivedya offerings fed the actual bodies of these temple gods. Food for god
should not be approached using a Western or rationalist framework but rather using the theological
framework of the day.
Historicizing these practices within their contextual moment using the preceding and
contemporaneous textual sources allows us to explore and theorize steps in the development of
the naivedya and prasād system that today is so integral to temple practice. When we observe historically
and textually situated notions and practices within the culture itself, we can frame the development of
this religious practice from within and from preceding religious practices rather than making claims

113 Similarly, Indian temple perfume recipes are notably simpler in formula than their royal (and other) counterparts, per my
communication with James Mchugh, July 2018.
114 For the idea of transvalued food, see (Breckenridge 1986, p. 37).
Religions 2018, 9, 270 32 of 34

about its development that read backward from later practice. This historical archive also allows us
to explore the role of sugar in Hindu religious practice, doubly illuminating when seen in light of
scholarship on the history, anthropology, and sociology of sugar elsewhere in the world (Mintz 1985).
It is also worth taking pause to discuss this important foodstuff in Hindu offerings given sugar’s
prominence in other world religions’ histories.
Finally, the diachronic examination of textual descriptions of naivedya suggests that the Cōla
¯
period was instrumental in the institutionalization of more complex offering practices in temples. The
Cōla-era effluence of inscription writing was also pivotal in the creation of novel forms of culinary
¯
writing as recipes written in stone and initiated a more widespread practice of recipe writing adopted in
Vijayanagara-period epigraphy. This indicates that, as with the strong Cōla patronage of infrastructure,
¯
temple art, and religious culture, Cōla-period patronage allowed culinary culture to flourish during
¯
this time period when religious culinary practices and culinary writing thrived.

Acknowledgments: A Fulbright-Nehru Student Research Fellowship funded this research conducted in 2017.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
Ahobila Math. 2009. Ahobila Muth. Available online: http://www.ahobilamutt.org/us/data/pdf/acaryaday_
akkaraadisil-v1.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2018).
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco. 2013. Genre conventions in english recipes, 1600–1800. In Reading and Writing Recipe
Books, 1550–1800. Edited by M. DiMeo and S. Pennell. Manchester and New York: Manchester University
Press, pp. 68–90.
Anonymous. 2007. Kōyil Oluku: Śrı̄raṅkamahātmiyam Enappat.um Śrı̄raṅkam Kōyil Varalāru, 2nd ed. Srirangam:
¯ ¯ ¯
Śrı̄raṅkamnācciyār Accakam.
Ān.t.āl.. 2018. Godharangan. Available online: http://godharangan.blogspot.com/2010/12/day-6-recipe-
kalkandu-bath-sugarcandy.html (accessed on 18 June 2018).
Ān.t.āl.. 1966. Nācciyār Tirumoli. Chennai: Annangarachariar Press.
¯
Appadurai, Arjun, and Carol A. Breckenridge. 1976. The South Indian Temple: Authority, Honor and Redistribution.
Contributions to Indian Sociology 10: 187–211. [CrossRef]
Archaeological Survey of India. 1939. Epigraphia Indica and Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, reprint ed.
Delhi: Manager of Publications/Archaeological Survey of India, vol. 1–34.
Archaeological Survey of India. 1986. South Indian Inscriptions, reprint ed. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of
India, vol. 1–34.
Breckenridge, Carol A. 1986. Food, Politics and Pilgrimage in South India, 1350–1650 A.D. In Food, Society and
Culture: Aspects in South Asian Food Systems. Edited by R. S. Khare and M. S. A. Rao. Durham: Carolina
Academic Press.
Carman, John Braisted. 1974. The Theology of Rāmanuja: An Essay in Interreligious Understanding. Number 18 in
Yale Publications in Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Carman, John Braisted, and Vasudha Narayanan. 1989. The Tamil Veda: Pil..lān’s Interpretation of the Tiruvāymoli.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Colas, Gerard. 1996. Vis.n.u, Ses Images et Ses Feux: Les Métamorphoses du Dieu Chez Les Vaikhānasa. Number 182.
Pondicherry: Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient.
Cutler, Norman. 1987. Songs of Experience: The Poetics of Tamil Devotion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Daniels, J., and C. Daniels. 1988. The Origin of the Sugarcane Roller Mill. Technology and Culture 29: 493–535.
[CrossRef]
Davis, Richard H. 1997. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dehejia, Vidya. 1988. Slaves of the Lord: The Path of the Tamil Saints. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Dehejia, Vidya. 1990. Art of the Imperial Cholas. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gopal, Lallanji. 1964. Sugar-Making in Ancient India. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 7:
57–72. [CrossRef]
Religions 2018, 9, 270 33 of 34

Greenland, Dennis J. 1997. The Sustainability of Rice Farming. New York: CAB International and Oxford University
Press.
Hart, George. 2005. Foreward. In Cı̄vakacintāman.i: The Hero Cı̄vakan, The Gem that Fulfills All Wishes, Verses 1-1165.
¯
Edited by J. D. Ryan. Fremont: Jain Publications.
Hart, George. 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love: An Anthology of Poems from Classical Tamil, The Akanānūru.
¯ ¯ ¯
Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry.
Herbert, Vaidehi. 2018. Learn Sangam Tamil. Available online: https://learnsangamtamil.com (accessed on 22
May 2018).
Kane, P. V. 1942. History of Dharmaśāstra. Part 2. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 2.
Kane, P. V. 1962. History of Dharmaśāstra. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 5.
Karashima, Noboru. 1996. South Indian Temple Inscriptions: A New Approach to their Study. South Asia: Journal
of South Asian Studies 19: 1–12. [CrossRef]
Karashima, Noboru. 2009. Ancient to Medieval: South Indian Society in Transition. Chapter 1. Kud.inı̄ngā-dēvadāna:
State, Temple, and Occupants of Temple Land. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Kieschnick, John. 2003. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lakshmi, K., and Deepa H. Ramakrishnan. 2013. In Search of Kanchipuram Idli. Available online: http://
www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/in-search-of-kancheepuram-idli/article4698641.ece (accessed on 6
June 2018).
Laudan, Rachel. 2013. Cuisine and Empire: Cooking in World History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laudan, Rachel. 2016. Just What is Food History: A Personal View. Talk given at the University of Texas at
Austin’s Institute for Historical Studies.
Lenin, Janaki. 2012. A Moveable Feast. Available online: http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/a-
moveable-feast/article2903369.ece (accessed on 13 June 2018).
Linderman, Michael C. 2013. Royal Accommodations: Pilgrim Rest Houses in Early Colonial South India.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25: 187–203. [CrossRef]
Mahārājanala. 1983. Pākadarpan.am. Vārān.ası̄: Caukhambhā Sam . skr.ta Samsthāna.
Malamoud, Charles. 1996. Cooking the World: Ritual and Thought in Ancient India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Mazumdar, Sucheta. 1998. Sugar and Society in China: Peasants, Technology, and the World Market. Cambridge:
Harvard University Asia Center.
Mchugh, James. 2012. The Disputed Civets and the Complexion of the God: Secretions and History in India.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 132: 245–73. [CrossRef]
Mchugh, James. Forthcoming. An Unholy Brew: Alcohol in Indian Religion and History. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, non-circulating draft.
Mintz, Sidney W. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking.
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Montanari, Massimo. 2006. Food is Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Naik, Kasanji D. 1922. Production of Refined Sugar in India by Small Establishments. The Louisiana Planter and
Sugar Manufacturer 69: 247.
Orr, Leslie C. 2004. Processions in the Medieval South Indian Temple: Sociology, Sovereignty, and Soteriology.
In South-Indian Horizons, Felicitation Volume for Francois Gros. Edited by J.-L. Chevillard. Pondicherry: Institut
Francais de Pondicherry, Ecole Francaise D’Extreme-Orient, pp. 437–470.
Orr, Leslie C. 2007. Domesticity and Difference/Women and Men: Religious Life in Medieval Tamilnadu.
In Women’s Lives, Women’s Rituals in the Hindu Tradition. Edited by T. Pintchman. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 109–29.
Orr, Leslie C. 2010. Words for Worship: Tamil and Sanskrit in Medieval Temple Inscriptions. In Cambridge Workshop
on Bilingual Discourse and Cross-Cultural Fertilization: Sanskrit and Tamil in Mediaeval India. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge, pp. 201–13.
Pennell, Sara and Michelle DiMeo. 2013. Introduction. In Reading and Writing Recipe Books, 1550–1800. Edited by
M. DiMeo and S. Pennell. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Peterson, Indira Viswanathan. 1989. Poems to Śiva: The Hymns of the Tamil Saints. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Pinkney, Andrea Marion. 2013. Prasāda, the Gracious Gift, in Contemporary and Classical South Asia. Journal of
the American Academy of Religion 81: 734–56. [CrossRef]
Religions 2018, 9, 270 34 of 34

Prakash, Om. 1961. Food and Drinks in Ancient India, From Earliest Times to c. 1200 AC. Delhi: Munshi Ram
Manohar Lal.
Rajendran, Sowmya. 2017. ‘Winged Termites are Yummy’: The Day My Ayah Taught Me to Respect What’s on
Another’s Plate. Available online: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/winged-termites-are-yummy-
day-my-ayah-taught-me-respect-whats-anothers-plate-62978. (accessed on 13 June 2018).
Sircar, D. C. 1966. Indian Epigraphical Glossary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Smith, Monica L. 2006. The Archaeology of Food Preference. American Anthropologist 108: 480–93. [CrossRef]
Someśvara III. 1925–1961. Mānasollāsa of King Someśvara. Number 84, etc. in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series. Baroda:
Baroda Central Library.
Srinivasa Ayyar, K. R., ed. 2002. Inscriptions in the Pudukkottai State, 2nd ed. Chennai: Commissioner of Museums,
Govt. of Tamilnadu.
Talbot, Cynthia. 1991. Temples, Donors, and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth-Century South India.
The Journal of Asian Studies 50: 308–40. [CrossRef]
Talbot, Cynthia. 2001. Temples and Temple Patronage in Kakatiya Andhra. In Precolonial India in Practice: Society,
Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–125.
Tirukkatēvar. 2018. Cı̄vakacintāman.i. Available online: http://www.tamilvu.org/library/libindex.htm (accessed
on 11 May 2018).
UNESCO. 2018. List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists (accessed
on 14 June 2018).
University of Madras. 1924–1936. Tamil Lexicon. Madras: University of Madras.
Venkatesan, Archana. 2010. The Secret Garland: Ān..tāl.’s Tiruppāvai and Nācciyār Tirumoli. New York: Oxford
¯
University Press.
Vijayaraghavacharya, V., and Sadhu Subrahmanya Sastry, eds. 1998. Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam Inscriptions,
Reprint ed. Tirupati: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, vol. 1–7.
von Hinüber, Oskar. 1971. Zur Technologie der Zuckerherstellung im alten Indien. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 121: 93–109.
Vālmı̄ki. 2008. Rāmāyan.a, Ayodhyākān.d.a (Book Two). New York: New York University Press, JJC Foundation.
Wujastyk, Dominik. 1998. The Roots of Āyurveda. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

c 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).